Accuracy in starphotometry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Starphotometry, the nightime counterpart of sunphotometry, has not yet achieved the commonly sought observational error level of 1%: a spectral optical depth (OD) error level of 0.01. In order to address this issue, we investigate a large variety of systematic (absolute) uncertainty sources. The bright star catalog of extraterrestrial references is noted as a major source of errors with an attendant recommendation that its accuracy, as well as its spectral photometric variability, be significantly improved. The small Field of View (FOV) employed in starphotometry ensures that starphotometry, unlike sun- or moonphotometry, is only weakly dependent on the intrinsic and artificial OD reduction induced by scattering into the FOV by optically thin clouds. A FOV of 45 arc-seconds was found to be the best tradeoff for minimizing such forward scattering errors concurrently with flux loss through vignetting. The importance of monitoring the sky background and using interpolation techniques to avoid spikes and to compensate for measurement delay was underscored. A set of 20 channels was identified to mitigate contamination errors associated with stellar and terrestrial-atmospheric gas absorptions, as well as aurora and airglow emissions. We also note that observations for starsphotometers similar to our high-Arctic starphotometer should be made at high angular elevations, i.e. at airmasses lower than 5. We noted the significant effects of snow crystal deposition on the starphotometer optics, how pseudo OD increases associated with this type of contamination could be detected and how proactive techniques could be employed to avoid their occurrence in the first place. If all these recommendations are followed, one may aspire to achieve component errors that are well below 0.01: in the process one may attain a total 0.01 OD target error.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".