MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200577499 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141414

Measuring the F-corona intensity through time correlation of total and polarized visible light images

2021· article· en· W4200577499 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. Burtovoi, G. Naletto, S. Dolei, D. Spadaro, M. Romoli, Federico Landini, Yara De Leo

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchU.S. Naval Research LaboratoryCentre National d’Etudes Spatiales
KeywordsCoronagraphCorona (planetary geology)PhysicsBrightnessIntensity (physics)OrbiterOpticsAstrophysicsAstronomyExoplanetStarsVenus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a new correlation method for deriving the F-corona intensity distribution, which is based on the analysis of the evolution of the total and polarized visible light (VL) images. We studied the one-month variation profiles of the total and polarized brightness acquired with Large Angle Spectrometric COronagraph and found that in some regions they are highly correlated. Assuming that the F-corona does not vary significantly on a timescale of one month, we estimated its intensity in the high-correlation regions and reconstructed the corresponding intensity maps both during the solar-minimum and solar-maximum periods. Systematic uncertainties were estimated by performing dedicated simulations. We compared the resulting F-corona images with those determined using the inversion technique and found that the correlation method provides a smoother intensity distribution. We also obtained that the F-corona images calculated for consecutive months show no significant variation. Finally, we note that this method can be applied to the future high-cadence VL observations carried out with the Metis/Solar Orbiter coronagraph.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.184 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicSolar and Space Plasma DynamicsFrench-language works237,207