MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3100248377 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201116480

<i>Planck</i>early results. III. First assessment of the Low Frequency Instrument in-flight performance

2011· article· en· W3100248377 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicExperimental and Theoretical Physics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueChina Scholarship CouncilTekesCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesAcademy of FinlandInstitut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des ParticulesEuropean Space AgencyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsPlanckAstrophysicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scientific performance of the Planck Low Frequency Instrument (LFI) after one year of in-orbit operation is presented. We describe the main optical parameters and discuss photometric calibration, white noise sensitivity, and noise properties. A preliminary evaluation of the impact of the main systematic effects is presented. For each of the performance parameters, we outline the methods used to obtain them from the flight data and provide a comparison with pre-launch ground assessments, which are essentially confirmed in flight.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.192 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it