MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4253891836 · doi:10.4095/219993

Detection of Spectral Line Curvature in Imaging Spectrometer Data

2003· report· en· W4253891836 on OpenAlexaff
R A Neville, Lixiang Sun, K Staenz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAstronomical Observations and Instrumentation
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurvatureSpectrometerImaging spectrometerLine (geometry)Spectral imagingPhysicsOpticsRemote sensingGeologyGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A procedure has been developed to measure the band-centres and bandwidths for imaging spectrometers using data acquired by the sensor in flight. This is done for each across-track pixel, thus allowing the measurement of the instrument's slit curvature or spectral 'smile', The procedure uses spectral features present in the at-sensor radiance which are common to all pixels in the scene. These are principally atmospheric absorption lines. The band-centre and bandwidth determinations are made by correlating the sensor measured radiance with a modelled radiance, the latter calculated using MODTRAN 4.2. Measurements have been made for a number of instruments including Airborne Visible and Infra-Red Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS), SWIR Full Spectrum Imager (SFSI), and Hyperion. The measurements on AVIRIS data were performed as a test of the procedure; since AVIRIS is a whisk-broom scanner it is expected to be free of spectral smile. SFSI is an airborne pushbroom instrument with considerable spectral smile. Hyperion is a satellite pushbroom sensor with a relatively small degree of smile. Measurements of Hyperion were made using three different data sets to check for temporal variations.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAstronomical Observations and InstrumentationFrench-language works237,207