MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245365288 · doi:10.1117/12.789286

Performance prediction of the TMT secondary mirror support system

2008· article· en· W4245365288 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Myung K. Cho

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAssociation of Canadian Universities for Research in AstronomyGordon and Betty Moore Foundation
KeywordsOpticsCurved mirrorPhysicsRADIUSTelescopeActive opticsPrimary mirrorComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ritchey-Chretien (RC) design of the Thirty Meter Telescope (TMT) optics calls for a 3.1 m diameter Secondary Mirror (M2), which is a large meniscus convex hyperboloid. The M2 converts the beam reflected from the f/1 primary mirror into an f/15 beam for the science instruments. The M2 Mirror (M2M) has a mass of approximately two metric tons and the mirror support system will need to maintain the mirror figure at different gravity orientations. Recent changes in the telescope configuration to RC from Aplanatic Gregorian (AG) prescription and reduction of the fully-illuminated field of view to 15 arc minutes required a design change in the M2 mirror figure from a concave radius to a convex radius, with a significant reduction in diameter, which in turn requires re-optimization of the mirror support systems. The optical performance evaluations were made based on the optimized support systems resulting from the change from AG to RC. The M2 optimized support system consists of 60 axial supports, mounted at the mirror back surface, and 24 lateral supports mounted along the outer edge. The predicted print-though errors of the M2M supports are 10nm RMS surface for axial gravity and 2nm RMS surface for lateral gravity. This M2M support system has an active optics capability to accommodate potential mechanical or thermal errors; its performance to correct low-order aberrations has been analyzed. A structure function of the axial gravity support print-through was calculated.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.720

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicAdaptive optics and wavefront sensingFrench-language works237,207