MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3131355656

First Results of the CFHLS Kuiper Belt Survey.

2004· article· en· W3131355656 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. L. Allen, Brett Gladman, J. J. Kavelaars, J. W. Parker, Jean-Marc Petit

Bibliographic record

VenueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAstrobiologyComputer sciencePhysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Very Wide component of the Canada-France-Hawaii Telesope Legacy Survey will image approximately 1000 square degrees of the ecliptic, with the goal of discovering about 1000 Kuiper Belt Objects and characterizing their orbital distribution. At present, about 152 square degrees have been covered with at least a 2 month observational baseline (out of a final 3 year baseline). Over 125 KBOs have been discovered in these fields, with a well- characterized discovery rate. The VW-CFHTLS has also been designed to provide an optimal recovery strategy and maximum ``legacy value'' for other purposes, with discovery observations occuring on two nights when the fields are at opposition, then further observations of these fields two months later, one year after discovery and a final epoch at three years after discovery. In combination with observations at other telescopes, this provides a bias-free recovery strategy, which in combination with the discovery efficiency characterization, allows an accurate determination of the orbital structure of the Kuiper Belt. We will present results from this first sample of KBOs.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe)→Same topicAstro and Planetary Science→French-language works237,207→