MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6989862247

Characterization of the LIGO detectors during their sixth science run

2015· article· en· W6989862247 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - Andrews University (Andrews University) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIstituto Nazionale di Fisica NucleareMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoNational Research Foundation of KoreaCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueIndustry CanadaGovern de les Illes BalearsFundacja na rzecz Nauki PolskiejNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationScottish Funding CouncilScottish Universities Physics AllianceLeverhulme TrustCouncil of Scientific and Industrial Research, IndiaScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNational Research FoundationAlfred P. Sloan FoundationMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodTSG101DiafiltrationDysgeusiaLiquationEmperipolesisProteogenomicsTriacetin
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2009–2010, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) operated together with international partners Virgo and GEO600 as a network to search for gravitational waves (GWs) of astrophysical origin. The sensitivity of these detectors was limited by a combination of noise sources inherent to the instrumental design and its environment, often localized in time or frequency, that couple into the GW readout. Here we review the performance of the LIGO instruments during this epoch, the work done to characterize the detectors and their data, and the effect that transient and continuous noise artefacts have on the sensitivity of LIGO to a variety of astrophysical sources.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.274
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - Andrews University (Andrews University)Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207