MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400971598 · doi:10.1117/12.3020397

Implementation plans for the data reduction pipeline for METIS at the ELT

2024· article· en· W4400971598 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kieran Leschinski, Hugo Buddelmeijer, O. Czoske, G. P. P. L. Otten, Martin Baláž, Fabian Haberhauer, Jennifer L. Karr, Wolfgang Kausch, T. Marquart, N. Sabha, Chi-Hung Yan, Norbert Przybilla, Shiang‐Yu Wang, W. W. Zeilinger

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle Detector Development and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetisComputer sciencePipeline (software)Reduction (mathematics)DatabaseProgramming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

METIS will be the first-light mid-infrared instrument at the ELT. Given the expected performance of the ELT’s adaptive optics systems, METIS will be able to probe regions of the sky previously inaccessible to astronomers. In support of both the METIS integration and verification efforts as well as the astronomical community at large, the METIS pipeline team has begun work on the METIS data reduction pipeline. The METIS pipeline will be written mostly in Python to take advantage of the new data reduction tools released by ESO. The development schedule has been set in such a way that the pipeline team will be able to directly support the testing and verification efforts during the upcoming system integration phase for METIS. In order to ensure that the required pipeline functionality is available when it is needed, the recipes and workflows functionality has been broken down into four levels of readiness: skeleton, functional, performance, and science-grade. This breakdown aims to ensure a more agile approach to the pipeline implementation as well as enabling productive contributions from all members of the highly geographically distributed team.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.671

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParticle Detector Development and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207