Archive for October, 2024

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

A Century of See See Rider

Posted in Jazz with tags , , , , , , , on October 16, 2024 by telescoper

Back in 2023 I posted an item marking the first appearance of Louis Armstrong on record with King Oliver’s Creole Jazz Band back in 1923. Now it’s time to mark another jazz centenary which also involves Satchmo but in a different setting. King Oliver’s band split up at the end of 1923 over a disagreement about a planned nationwide tour and in 1924 Louis Armstrong moved to New York. He was soon snapped up by Fletcher Henderson and spent a glorious year as star trumpet soloist with Henderson’s big band. During that time he also made records with various small bands, including a number with the great vocalist and “Mother of the Blues” Gertrude “Ma” Rainey.

One of the tracks recorded by Ma Rainey in the Paramount studio in New York was called See See Rider. Although not released until 1925, the very first recording of this number was made exactly one hundred years ago today, on 16th October 1924, by “Ma Rainey and her Georgia Jazz Band”, the supporting musicians being Charlie Dixon (Banjo), Buster Bailey (Clarinet), Charlie Green (Trombone), Fletcher Henderson (Piano) and Louis Armstrong (Cornet). The origins of this blues song are lost in the mists of time but it has been recorded a huge number of times, not only by jazz and blues musicians but also by the likes of Elvis Presley; I posted a great version by Peggy Lee here.

Unusually for the time, two takes were made of which the following was the first. Notice that there is an introduction in the form of a verse, which is quite unusual: most blues performances involve only a chorus. Despite the limitations of recording technology at the time you can hear what a tremendously soulful voice Ma Rainey had, and the muted cornet work by Louis Armstrong is unmistakable.

The sound quality may not be great, but it’s a priceless piece of music history.

Leave a comment »

A Taste of the Euclid Survey

Posted in Euclid, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , on October 15, 2024 by telescoper

Today (15th October 2024) saw the release of a sneak preview of the main survey of the European Space Agency’s Euclid survey at the International Astronautical Congress in Milan. Here’s the key image.

This image is not at full science resolution of the Euclid survey and is meant primarily as an appetizer. The resolution is11Kx4K,  and is processed by the same pipeline that produced the Euclid Early Release Observations featured here and here. You can find more detail about these images here and here. I have taken this from the latter article:

Euclid has been surveying the sky since 14 February 2024 and data processing is in full swing – the first public release of 53 deg² of science-grade Wide Survey data will take place in March next year. But how much data has Euclid already observed and how can we possibly visualize this? At a rate of 10 deg² per day, the Euclid Wide Survey has already surpassed 1000 deg², that is 5000x the apparent size of the Moon in the sky! Now ESA has put out a first set of images that allow to grasp how much data Euclid is and will be producing.

There’s also this explanatory video:

This is just taster. The main survey will take many years to complete. But it’s a start…

Leave a comment »

Failures of Scopus

Posted in Maynooth, Open Access with tags , , , , , on October 14, 2024 by telescoper

I think it’s time to provide an update on the continuing (lack of) progress getting The Open Journal of Astrophysics properly indexed in Scopus (which markets itself as a purveyor of “metrics you can trust”). You might recall back in June that I reported that OJAp had been included in the index, but unfortunately the Scopus team messed up very badly by omitting about one-third of our papers and most of our citations. I reported a month ago that Scopus had committed to fixing the issue within two weeks. Now almost FIVE WEEKS later they haven’t done a thing.

Here’s the problem:

In the column marked Documents 2020-23  you will see the number 67. In fact we published 99 articles between 2020 and 2023, not 67. This is easily established here. The number 67 relates to the period 2022-23 only. Accidentally or deliberately, Scopus has omitted a third of our papers from its database. But the error doesn’t end there. Papers published in OJAp between 2020 and 2023 have actually been cited 959 times, not 137. If you restrict the count to papers published in 2022-23 there are 526 citations. It’s no wonder that OJAp has such a low CiteScore, and consequently appears so far down the rankings, when the citation information is so woefully inaccurate.

“Metrics you can trust?” My arse!

If you want accurate bibliometric information about the papers published in the two years that Scopus has chosen to ignore you can look here.

This all merely demonstrates the folly that so many institutions place so much trust in Scopus. Unfortunately the powers that be have decided that Scopus listing is such a reliable indicator of quality that any article not published in a Scopus journal is worthless. Knowing that it has a monopoly, Scopus has no incentive to put any effort into its own quality assurance. It can peddle any error-ridden tripe to its subscribers, most of them paying for the product with taxpayers’ money. Unfortunately the bean-counters at Maynooth University are as credulous as any, mindlessly parroting spurious announcements based on the Scopus database.

Maynooth University is proud to offer undergraduates a course in Critical Skills. I suggest it that the gullible members of its management team would do well to take it.

9 Comments »

Alarums and Excursions

Posted in Biographical, Education, Maynooth on October 13, 2024 by telescoper

Last week was the third week of the semester at Maynooth University and teaching activity has ramped up to its full level: tutorials have begun; assignments handed in, corrected and returned; projects allocated; and so on. With a quarter of the term now over, and two new modules to teach, I’m relieved that apart from a batch of assignments to correct (which I’ll do this afternoon), I haven’t fallen behind schedule.

The addition of our Space Week event made this an extra busy week, as did a few personal matters that have been dragging on for ages and weighing on my mind, but which are now at last resolved; the last stage completed on Friday.

To add to all this I had to interrupt work to make two extra trips from my office and back. On Wednesday I went early to my office on campus planning to write my Space Week talk in the afternoon, after a lunchtime tutorial. Unfortunately when I got there I realized I had left the power supply for my laptop at home. A sensible person would have bought two adapters, one for work and one for home, but I didn’t do that so had to go home to retrieve it. It’s only about a 20-minute walk home from my office but I was annoyed at having to waste 40 minutes there and back, not to mention a bit tired.

In the pub after the evening event, one of our technicians told me that he keeps a collection of spare power supplies in his office, so I needn’t have bothered. Sigh.

The following morning I was in the office again when I got a phone call from one of my neighbours who told me the burglar alarm in my house was ringing. I could hear it over the phone actually. It’s very loud. I had time to get there and back before my lecture so I set off home once again. By the time I got back to the house, the alarm had switched off but when I checked the control panel it explained “REAR WINDOW. GROSS EVENT.” I did wonder what “GROSS” meant in this context, however. Had something particular disgusting happened? Or had 144 people tried to break in?

There was no sign of any break-in and all windows including those at the rear were intact so all was well. I then checked the instructions for the alarm to see what “GROSS” was meant to indicate. It turns out to mean one large thump on the window, as opposed to “PULSE” which refers to a series of short impacts. There was no certainly no sign of anything gross. Although there was no supporting evidence, my best guess is that a bird flew into the window.

Anyway, I reset the alarm and waited for 15 minutes to see if it went off again in case there was a fault and when it didn’t I went back to work. It hasn’t happened again.

Leave a comment »

Pass on Bach

Posted in Music with tags , , , , , , , on October 12, 2024 by telescoper

I thought I’d share this lovely little clip of the late great jazz guitarist Joe Pass. It’s from a show that classical guitarist John Williams presented along with three other exponents of the guitar from different genres. At this point they had been talking about the similarities between Jazz and Baroque music, especially with regards to the improvisation, so Williams invited Pass to improvise on a Chaconne by Johan Sebastian Bach. The result is absolutely fascinating, not least because of the musical jokes in the form of blue notes that Pass includes during his spontaneous elaboration. The first elicits a big smile from John Williams because the tritone Pass plays was regarded as the diabolus in musica in Bach’s time, but for a jazz musician blue notes like this are par for the course.

P.S. it’s amazing how little Joe Pass’s right hand seems to move…

4 Comments »

Six New Publications at the Open Journal of Astrophysics

Posted in OJAp Papers, Open Access, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 12, 2024 by telescoper

Regular readers of this blog (both of them) will have noticed that I didn’t post an update of activity at the Open Journal of Astrophysics last weekend. Despite having accepted several papers for publication in the preceding week, no final versions had made it onto the arXiv. We can’t published a paper until the authors post the final version, so that meant a bit of a backlog developed. This week included one day with no arXiv update (owing to a US holiday on Tuesday 8th October) and a major glitch on Crossref on Thursday which delayed a couple, but even so we’ve published six papers which is the most we’ve ever managed in a week. This week saw the publication of our 200th article; the total as of today is 202.  The count in Volume 7 (2024) is now up to 87; we have four papers in the queue for publication so we should pass 90 next week if all goes well.

In chronological order, the six papers published this week, with their overlays, are as follows. You can click on the images of the overlays to make them larger should you wish to do so.

First one up, published on Monday 7th October 2024 is “z~2 dual AGN host galaxies are disky: stellar kinematics in the ASTRID Simulation” by Ekaterina Dadiani (CMU; Carnegie Mellon U.) Tiziana di Matteo (CMU), Nianyi Chen (CMU), Patrick Lachance (CMU), Yue Shen (U. Illinois at Urbana-Champaign), Yu-Ching Chen (Johns Hopkins U.), Rupert Croft (CMU), Yueying Ni (CfA Harvard) and Simeon Bird (U. California Riverside) – all based in the USA. The paper, which is in the folder marked Astrophysics of Galaxies describes a numerical study of the morphology of AGN host galaxies containing close pairs of black holes.

Here is a screen grab of the overlay, which includes the abstract:

 

You can find the officially accepted version of the paper on the arXiv here.

The second paper to announce, published on 8th October 2024, is “Origin of LAMOST J1010+2358 Revisited” by S.K. Jeena and Projjwal Banerjee of the Indian Institute of Technology Palakkad, Kerala, India. This paper discusses  the possible formation mechanisms for Very Metal Poor (VMP) stars and the implications for the origin of LAMOST J1010+2358 and is in the folder marked Solar and Stellar Astrophysics.

You can see the overlay here:

The accepted version of this paper can be found on the arXiv here.

The third paper is very different in both style and content: “Assessing your Observatory’s Impact: Best Practices in Establishing and Maintaining Observatory Bibliographies” by Raffaele D’Abrusco (Harvard CfA and 14 others; the Observatory Bibliographers Collaboration) and is in the folder marked Instrumentation and Methods for Astrophysics. It presents discussion of the methods used by astronomical observatories to construct and analyze bibliographic databases. The overlay is here:

(This one gave me a rare opportunity to use the library of stock images that comes with the Scholastica platform!) The officially accepted version can be found on arXiv here.

The fourth paper, also published on 8th October 2024, and our 200th publication, is in the folder marked Cosmology and NonGalactic Astrophysics, and is called “CombineHarvesterFlow: Joint Probe Analysis Made Easy with Normalizing Flows“. The authors are Peter L. Taylor, Andrei Cuceu, Chun-Hao To, and Erik A. Zaborowski of Ohio State University, USA. The article presents a new method that speeds up the sampling of joint posterior distributions in the context of inference using combinations of data sets. The overlay is here

You can find the officially accepted version of this paper here.

The fifth paper in this batch is “Estimating Exoplanet Mass using Machine Learning on Incomplete Datasets” by Florian Lalande (Okinawa Institute of Science and Technology), Elizabeth Tasker (Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Kanagawa) and Kenji Doya (Okinawa); all based in Japan. This one was published on 10th October 2024 in the folder marked Earth and Planetary Astrophysics. It compares different methods for inferring exoplanet masses in catalogues with missing data

 

 

You can find the official accepted version on the arXiv here.

Finally for this week we have “Forecasting the accuracy of velocity-field reconstruction” by Chris Blake and Ryan Turner of Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia. This was also published on 10th October 2024 and is in the folder marked Cosmology and NonGalactic Astrophysics. The paper describes a numerical study of the reliability and precision of different methods of velocity-density reconstruction. The overlay is here

You can find the officially-accepted version on arXiv here.

That’s it for now. We have published six papers, with a very wide geographical spread of authors, and in five of the six astro-ph categories we cover. I think it’s been a good week!

1 Comment »

Predicting the Future of Publishing from the Past

Posted in Open Access, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , on October 11, 2024 by telescoper

I was intrigued by an editorial piece from 20 years ago that was sent to me by Prof. Peter Schneider (who, among many other things, is Chair of the Euclid Consortium Editorial Board) who happens to be one of the authors. The article gives an interesting insight into the processes involved in being an Editor for the journal Astronomy and Astrophysics (A&A) at the time, and is worth reading all the way through, but I was particularly struck by Section 6.2, which makes some predictions about the future.

Here’s an excerpt:

We can even go a step further and ask the provocative question of whether we will need a peer-reviewed journal like A&A in the future. After all, in some communities, astro-ph has taken over the role of communicating new results. Is astro-ph not sufficient? A few aspects of a potentially very long answer to that question are as follows: many authors submit their manuscript to astro-ph, but only after it has been peer-reviewed, which shows that most researchers consider the peer-reviewing essential. People’s achievements are often judged by their refereed papers. Certainly at present, peer-reviewing is seen as a kind of quality stamp on manuscripts, and we are here to witness that papers are improved in the course of the refereeing process.


But what if astro-ph is supplemented by a refereeing process, essentially in the same way as the major journals do today, so that a manuscript gets a “green tick-mark” after successfully passing the reviewing stage and being “frozen”, i.e., cannot be replaced with an updated version anymore. We suspect that this is possible, although it would require a fairly large board of Editors to cope with the numbers of submissions to astro-ph, accompanied by costs that would have to be covered by someone. If this system were to replace the current journals, then one would end up with a single electronic-only astronomy journal and preprint service system. What if a paper is not passing through the refereeing stage? At present, a paper rejected by one journal can still be submitted to a second one, thus getting another chance to be published. We consider this second-chance opportunity a necessary feature for a fair peer-reviewed information flow. Hence, we would need more than one “astro-ph”-like system with different boards of editors, and this brings us back closely to a system of several electronic-only journals.

This is basically the idea behind the Open Journal of Astrophysics, which I didn’t really start thinking about until about 2010. In fact, when we were talking about setting up OJAp – about a decade after this paper was written – we did discuss the possibility of just having a “green tick-mark” on the arXiv entry. We rejected this idea in favour of the overlay concept primarily because of security concerns about who writes the tick mark into the arXiv field. I do agree with the point about having multiple platforms for such publications, however, and I have frequently argued that there should be alternatives to OJAp.

Here is another extract, from the very end of the paper:

We have taken here the role of devil’s advocate to demonstrate that issues in going electronic-only are far from being as simple and clear-cut as some open-access gurus would like us to believe. Obviously, electronic publishing is a timely and controversial issue that we will continue to consider in the coming years. The future of publication will be decided less by Boards of Directors and Editors, or by publishers, than by the community at large. With the availability of electronic-only journals, authors make their own decision on where to submit a manuscript. At present, this vote is clearly in favor of traditional journals, but as that may change we will remain open and ready to adapt.

I would hesitate to call myself a “guru” but I do think that the issues are clearer now than perhaps they were in 2004. Twenty years on, the balance is still in favour of traditional journals at least in terms of numbers of papers being published. Judging by the activity at OJAp, it may be that things may be changing…

Leave a comment »

Maynooth University Library Cat Update

Posted in Maynooth with tags on October 11, 2024 by telescoper

It is rather cold this morning…

…he is in there!

Leave a comment »

Space Week 2024: The Universe according to Euclid

Posted in Biographical, Books, Talks and Reviews, Euclid, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , , , , on October 10, 2024 by telescoper

I had a very busy day yesterday culminating in the Space Week event I blogged about a few weeks ago. There was a good attendance – lots of young kids as well as adults – and the lecture room was very full. We could probably have filled a much bigger room, actually, but had been moved to a smaller venue and had to close registrations very early to avoid having too many people. I’d guess we had about 350. My talk was the last one, and didn’t finish until 8.30 by which time I was definitely ready for a pint.

You can find the slides I used for my presentation, The Universe according to Euclid, here.

There was an official photographer there who took quite a few pictures but I haven’t seen any of them yet. I’ll post a selection if and when I get them.

1 Comment »

The 200th Publication at the Open Journal of Astrophysics

Posted in OJAp Papers, Open Access, The Universe and Stuff with tags , , on October 8, 2024 by telescoper

It was on September 11th last year that we published the 100th paper at the Open Journal of Astrophysics. Today, on 8th October 2024, just over a year later we have reached the 200 mark with this paper:

In fact this looks like being a record-breaking week for OJAp as we have published four papers already and its only Tuesday. To be fair, most of these were accepted last week but were slow appearing on the arXiv – I think partly due to glitches on arXiv – but still it’s nice to be this active. I’ll do a regular post at the weekend with details of how many we published in total by then. I’m very confident that we will reach 100 for the calendar year.

1 Comment »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »