MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392013163 · doi:10.3847/psj/ad17c4

Sensitivity Testing of Stereophotoclinometry for the OSIRIS-REx Mission. II. Effective Observation Geometry for Digital Terrain Modeling

2024· article· en· W4392013163 on OpenAlexaff
E. E. Palmer, J. R. Weirich, R. W. Gaskell, Diane Lambert, Tanner Campbell, Kristofer Drozd, O. S. Barnouin, M. G. Daly, Kenneth M. Getzandanner, John Kidd, Coralie D. Adam, D. S. Lauretta

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Planetary Science Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersScience Mission Directorate
KeywordsOsirisSensitivity (control systems)TerrainGeometryRemote sensingGeologyEngineeringGeographyMathematicsCartographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The OSIRIS-REx mission used stereophotoclinometry (SPC) to generate digital terrain models (DTMs) of its target asteroid, Bennu. Here we present a suite of preflight tests conducted to identify the observing geometry and number of images needed to create DTMs that would enable successful navigation around and to the surface of the asteroid. We demonstrate that high-quality DTMs can be generated by using only five images: four that are focused on topography, in which the spacecraft’s viewing geometry brackets the target (north, south, east, and west), and a fifth that measures the target’s albedo variation, taken from near local noon. We further show that the first 10 iterations of the SPC process can meaningfully improve DTM quality, including in the case of a suboptimal input image set, whereas after 10 iterations the DTM quality approaches an asymptotic maximum. We distill our findings into recommendations for observation planning that can be applied by other missions intending to use SPC to model the shape and terrain of their target.

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)0.003
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score0.956

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Planetary Science JournalSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207