MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295763016 · doi:10.1016/j.asr.2022.08.068

Resident space object (RSO) attitude and optical property estimation from space-based light curves

2022· article· en· W4295763016 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Space Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpace Satellite Systems and Control
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace (punctuation)Computer scienceSituation awarenessRemote sensingRadarObject (grammar)Property (philosophy)Computer visionArtificial intelligenceAerospace engineeringGeologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increase in the number of objects orbiting Earth, Space Situational Awareness (SSA) has becoming an important area of research in the space sector. Currently most sensors that contribute to SSA are large dedicated optical or radar stations, such as space fence (Pechkis, et al., 2015). With the increase in low resolution sensors in LEO there is a growing potential to utilize these to augment current SSA efforts. Star trackers are readily available and used in space for attitude determination, with recent work performed to demonstrate the benefit of using spaced-based optical measurements for Resident Space Object (RSO) detection. In this paper, we describe the interpretation of space-based measurement for light curve of an RSOs to estimate the RSOs shape, attitude and optical properties. In this model, two Bidirectional Reflectance Distribution Functions (BDRF’s) are compared, namely a defined facet model and an anthropic Phong model. From the initial results an RSOs shape, attitude, optical properties can be estimated with basic a-priory information on the shape of the RSO with both models.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.290 · 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