MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156724820 · doi:10.3847/1538-4365/abec80

PHANGS–ALMA Data Processing and Pipeline

2021· article· en· W3156724820 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsData processingDeconvolutionData setData qualityPipeline (software)Noise (video)SoftwareData acquisitionMasking (illustration)Quality assurance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We describe the processing of the PHANGS–ALMA survey and present the PHANGS–ALMA pipeline, a public software package that processes calibrated interferometric and total power data into science-ready data products. PHANGS–ALMA is a large, high-resolution survey of CO(2–1) emission from nearby galaxies. The observations combine ALMA’s main 12 m array, the 7 m array, and total power observations, and use mosaics of dozens to hundreds of individual pointings. We describe the processing of the u − v data, imaging and deconvolution, linear mosaicking, combining interferometer and total power data, noise estimation, masking, data product creation, and quality assurance. Our pipeline has a general design and can also be applied to Very Large Array and ALMA observations of other spectral lines and continuum emission. We highlight our recipe for deconvolution of complex spectral line observations, which combines multiscale clean, single-scale clean, and automatic mask generation in a way that appears robust and effective. We also emphasize our two-track approach to masking and data product creation. We construct one set of “broadly masked” data products, which have high completeness but significant contamination by noise, and another set of “strictly masked” data products, which have high confidence but exclude faint, low signal-to-noise emission. Our quality assurance tests, supported by simulations, demonstrate that 12 m+7 m deconvolved data recover a total flux that is significantly closer to the total power flux than the 7 m deconvolved data alone. In the appendices, we measure the stability of the ALMA total power calibration in PHANGS–ALMA and test the performance of popular short-spacing correction algorithms.

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations177
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal Supplement SeriesSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207