MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7132305864

Specifications, procurement and testing of the TMT-NFIRAOS double-pyramid prisms

2019· article· en· W7132305864 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced optical system design
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAchromatic lensPyramid (geometry)WavefrontLens (geology)Angular resolution (graph drawing)Adaptive opticsRedundancy (engineering)Chromatic scale
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NFIRAOS, the adaptive optics system of TMT, uses a pyramid wavefront sensor in addition to the 6 LGS WFSs. This pyramid WFS, referred to as Visible NGS WFS (VNW) reach its final design and is now ready for fabrication. One of the high-risk items is the custom achromatic double-pyramid prisms that are very challenging to manufacture. Fortunately, for NFIRAOS we were able to relax the angular tolerance of the pyramid to 2 arcmin. First, this paper lists the main optical specifications and tolerances of the double-pyramid. Then, we present the fabrication process developed by BMV Optical Technologies, our supplier, who successfully produced four double-pyramids. Finally, we describe the sequence of tests we performed at NRC during the incoming inspections; including a new optical test we developed to quickly verify the angular tolerance of the delivered double-pyramid prisms. This is a simple, accurate and robust test that doesn’t require any special lab equipment other than a pinhole source and a stock lens in front of the pyramid, and it is insensitive to lens imperfections and misalignment errors. We call this test the “Metafocus Test” as it makes use of a so-far unknown interesting optical property of the double-pyramid, for which the four exiting beams intercept into a single point. Any angular error on the faces of the pyramid will split the metafocus up to four spots. The as-built apex and azimuth angles, as well as assembly errors (wedge and clocking of front pyramid w.r.t. rear pyramid) can be derived from the measurement of the relative position of each spot.

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.173 · 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