MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403028769 · doi:10.1117/12.3029594

Enhanced training through the NSERC CREATE program on New Technologies for Canadian Observatories (NTCO)

2024· article· en· W4403028769 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kim A. Venn, Simon Thibault, Tammy McLash, Clare Higgs, Dave Anderson, Colin Bradley, Olivier Daigle, René Doyon, B. M. Gaensler, Frédéric Grandmont, J. J. Kavelaars, S. J. Kleinman, Brenda C. Matthews, Neil Rowland, Stephen Se, Luc Simard, Suresh Sivanandam, Christine Wilson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAstronomical Observations and Instrumentation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)Computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The NSERC CREATE training program on New Technologies for Canadian Observatories (NTCO) has been a unique collaboration between academia, government, and industry to advance innovation in astronomical instrumentation while fostering knowledge exchange as part of an advanced student training program. Through strategic partnerships and funding support, NTCO facilitated the creation of industrial internship opportunities for graduate and undergraduate students in physics, astronomy, and engineering, enabling them to gain valuable professional experience while making high impact contributions to cutting-edge research projects. The NTCO program included nearly 200 supervisors (a third in industry) working together to successfully bridge the gaps between academia, government, and industry, through 70 industrial internships (37 graduate, 33 undergraduate) over the seven-year duration of the program. This paper will outline the key activities and outcomes of the NTCO program, ranging from our strategies in recruiting a diverse group of students and matching them with appropriate industrial internship experiences, to the benefits of advanced summer school training, peer support, annual general meetings, and professional skills development courses for our participants.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.940

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designOther design
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 topicAstronomical Observations and InstrumentationFrench-language works237,207