MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254857394 · doi:10.1117/12.2054777

The JWST science instrument payload: mission context and status

2014· article· en· W4254857394 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Matthew A. Greenhouse

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJames Webb Space TelescopePhysicsObservatorySpitzer Space TelescopePayload (computing)Remote sensingTelescopeContext (archaeology)AstronomyAerospace engineeringSystems engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) is the scientific successor to the Hubble Space Telescope. It is a cryogenic infrared space observatory with a 25 m<sup>2</sup> aperture (6 m class) telescope that will achieve diffraction limited angular resolution at a wavelength of 2 um. The science instrument payload includes four passively cooled near-infrared instruments providing broad- and narrow-band imagery, coronography, as well as multi-object and integral-field spectroscopy over the 0.6 &lt; &lambda; &lt; 5.0 um spectrum. An actively cooled mid-infrared instrument provides broad-band imagery, coronography, and integral-field spectroscopy over the 5.0 &lt; &lambda; &lt; 29 um spectrum. The JWST is being developed by NASA, in partnership with the European and Canadian Space Agencies, as a general user facility with science observations to be proposed by the international astronomical community in a manner similar to the Hubble Space Telescope. Technology development and mission design are complete. Construction, integration and verification testing is underway in all areas of the program. The JWST is on schedule for launch during 2018.

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)0.001
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 score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207