MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226203131 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac5599

Plaskett 1.8 m Observations of Starlink Satellites

2022· article· en· W4226203131 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron C. Boley, Ewan Wright, Samantha Lawler, Paul Hickson, D. Balam

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaDominion Astrophysical ObservatoryCampion CollegeUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsBrightnessSatelliteObservatoryAstrophysicsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present observations of 23 Starlink satellites in the g′ bandpass, obtained from the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory’s Plaskett 1.8 m telescope. The targets include a mixture of satellites with and without brightness mitigation measures (i.e., visors). At the time of the observations (2021 July 16), Starlink satellites were sunlit throughout the night, and, even with strict elevation and azimuth limits, there were over 800 candidate Starlink arcs. The satellites altogether have a median range corrected brightness (550 km) of H ¯ g 550 = 5.3 mag. Dividing the targets into those without and with visors, their median range corrected magnitudes are H ¯ g 550 ( no visor ) = 5.1 and H ¯ g 550 ( visor ) = 5.7 mag, respectively. While the visor sample is dimmer in aggregate, the range corrected brightness distribution ranged from H g 550 = 4.3 mag to 9.4 mag. The two brightest satellites have similar H g 550 to within the uncertainty, but one is visored and the other nonvisored. The dimmest satellite we observed is one without mitigations. The intrinsic brightness dispersion among the full sample is σ g = 0.5 mag.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations19
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207