MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6891792509 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2205.03668

Performance of the polarization leakage correction in the PILOT data

2022· preprint· en· W6891792509 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolarization (electrochemistry)DetectorLeakage (economics)WavelengthData processingMeasuring instrument

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Polarized Instrument for Long-wavelength Observation of the Tenuous interstellar medium (PILOT) is a balloon-borne experiment that aims to measure the polarized emission of thermal dust at a wavelength of 240 um (1.2 THz). The PILOT experiment flew from Timmins, Ontario, Canada in 2015 and 2019 and from Alice Springs, Australia in April 2017. The in-flight performance of the instrument during the second flight was described in Mangilli et al. 2019. In this paper, we present data processing steps that were not presented in Mangilli et al. 2019 and that we have recently implemented to correct for several remaining instrumental effects. The additional data processing concerns corrections related to detector cross-talk and readout circuit memory effects, and leakage from total intensity to polarization. We illustrate the above effects and the performance of our corrections using data obtained during the third flight of PILOT, but the methods used to assess the impact of these effects on the final science-ready data, and our strategies for correcting them will be applied to all PILOT data. We show that the above corrections, and in particular that for the intensity to polarization leakage, which is most critical for accurate polarization measurements with PILOT, are accurate to better than 0.4 % as measured on Jupiter during flight#3.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.101 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)→Same topicAstro and Planetary Science→French-language works237,207→