MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158561072 · doi:10.3847/psj/abe4dc

Validation of Stereophotoclinometric Shape Models of Asteroid (101955) Bennu during the OSIRIS-REx Mission

2021· article· en· W3158561072 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Al Asad, L. Philpott, C. L. Johnson, O. S. Barnouin, E. E. Palmer, J. R. Weirich, M. G. Daly, M. E. Perry, R. W. Gaskell, E. B. Bierhaus, J. A. Seabrook, R. C. Espiritu, Hari Nair, C. M. Ernst, R. T. Daly, M. C. Nolan, H. Enos, D. S. Lauretta

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Planetary Science Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsOsirisAsteroidSpacecraftComputer scienceDocumentationAerospace engineeringAstrobiologyEngineeringPhysicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract NASA’s OSIRIS-REx mission to asteroid (101955) Bennu relied on the production of real-time shape models for both spacecraft navigation and scientific analysis. The primary method of constructing shape models during the early phases of the mission was image-based stereophotoclinometry (SPC). The SPC shape models were used for operational planning, navigation, sample site selection, and initial scientific investigations. To this end, detailed analyses of the quality of each shape model and a thorough documentation of all sources of error were vital to ensure proper considerations of the limitations of each model. In this paper, we present methods used during the OSIRIS-REx mission to validate the SPC shape models and construct the associated quality reports. Although developed for the OSIRIS-REx mission, these validation techniques can be applied to SPC-derived shape models of other planetary bodies.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations35
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Planetary Science JournalSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207