MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4229452152 · doi:10.3847/psj/ac46d2

Quality Assessment of Stereophotoclinometry as a Shape Modeling Method Using a Synthetic Asteroid

2022· article· en· W4229452152 on OpenAlexaff
J. R. Weirich, E. E. Palmer, M. G. Daly, O. S. Barnouin, Kenneth M. Getzandanner, John Kidd, Coralie D. Adam, R. W. Gaskell, D. S. Lauretta

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Planetary Science Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsteroidDigital elevation modelGround truthComputer scienceConsistency (knowledge bases)Remote sensingComputer graphics (images)GeologyArtificial intelligenceAstronomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The stereophotoclinometry (SPC) software suite has been used to generate global digital terrain models (DTMs) of many asteroids and moons, and was the primary tool used by the Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, and Security-Regolith Explorer (OSIRIS-REx) mission to model the shape of asteroid Bennu. We describe the dedicated preflight testing of SPC for the OSIRIS-REx mission using a synthetic “truth” asteroid model. SPC has metrics that determine the internal consistency of a DTM, but it was not known how these metrics are related to the absolute accuracy of a DTM, which was important for the operational needs of the mission. The absolute accuracy of an SPC-generated DTM cannot be determined without knowing the truth topography. Consequently, we developed a realistic, but synthetic, computer-generated representation of asteroid Bennu, photographed this synthetic truth model in an imaging campaign similar to that planned for the OSIRIS-REx mission, and then generated a global SPC DTM from these images. We compared the SPC DTM, which was represented by a radius every 70 cm across the asteroid surface, to the synthetic truth model to assess the absolute accuracy. We found that the internal consistency can be used to determine the 3D root-mean-square accuracy of the model to within a factor of two of the absolute accuracy.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations23
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Planetary Science JournalSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207