MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7033129968

Planck 2015 results I. Overview of products and scientific results

2020· article· en· W7033129968 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSpaceflight effects on biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlanckPayload (computing)Planck's lawPrincipal (computer security)Agency (philosophy)Planck energy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Planck is a project of the European Space Agency in cooperation with the scientific community, which started in 1993. ESA led the\n\t\t\t\t project, developed the satellite, integrated the payload into it, and launched\n\t\t\t\t and operated the satellite. Two Consortia, comprising around 100 scientific institutes within Europe, the USA, and Canada, and funded by agencies from\n\t\t\t\t the participating countries, developed and operated the scientific instruments\n\t\t\t\t LFI and HFI. The Consortia are also responsible for scientific processing of\n\t\t\t\t the acquired data. The Consortia are led by the Principal Investigators: J.-L.\n\t\t\t\t Puget in France for HFI (funded principally by CNES and CNRS/INSU-IN2P3)\n\t\t\t\t and N. Mandolesi in Italy for LFI (funded principally via ASI). NASA’s US\n\t\t\t\t Planck Project, based at JPL and involving scientists at many US institutions,\n\t\t\t\t contributes significantly to the efforts of these two Consortia. A third Consortium, led by H.U. Norgaard-Nielsen and supported by the Danish Natural Research Council, contributed to the reflector programme. These three Consortia, together with ESA’s Planck Science Office, form the Planck Collaboration. A\n\t\t\t\t description of the Planck Collaboration and a list of its members, indicating\n\t\t\t\t which technical or scientific activities they have been involved in, can be found\n\t\t\t\t at http://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/planck-collaboration. The Planck Collaboration acknowledges the support of: ESA; CNES and CNRS/INSU-IN2P3-\n\t\t\t\t INP (France); ASI, CNR, and INAF (Italy); NASA and DoE (USA); STFC and\n\t\t\t\t UKSA (UK); CSIC, MINECO, JA, and RES (Spain); Tekes, AoF, and CSC\n\t\t\t\t (Finland); DLR and MPG (Germany); CSA (Canada); DTU Space (Denmark);\n\t\t\t\t SER/SSO (Switzerland); RCN (Norway); SFI (Ireland); FCT/MCTES (Portugal); ERC and PRACE (EU). We thank Diego Falceta-Gonçalves for providing the technique for making the line-integral-convolution maps presented in\n\t\t\t\t Figs. 23 and 25.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0180.021
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0130.011
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1270.139

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreReview

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)Same topicSpaceflight effects on biologyFrench-language works237,207