Open Access

Table A.1

Quality of core extractions done using the original and denoised images of Fig. A.1b-Fig. A.1c for either detection or measurement or both.

Extraction strategy Cores extracted by getsf Cores (number and their proportion in the getsf catalog)
Detection Measurement correctly extracted with bad with rough with bad with rough
detection measurement
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
original original 132 128 (97%) 0 1 (1%) 4 (3%) 21 (16%)
denoised original 183 163 (90%) 0 5 (3%) 18 (10%) 27 (15%)
denoised denoised 183 173 (95%) 0 6 (3%) 10 (5%) 32 (17%)

(4) Extracted cores, whose peak position is at worst partly inaccurate, and whose flux measurement is inaccurate by at worst a factor of 2 (see definitions below).

(5) Detected cores, whose peak position is very inaccurate: Θoffset-position > Θbeam/2.

(6) Detected cores whose peak position is partly inaccurate: Θbeam/4 < Θoffset-position ≤ Θbeam/2.

(7) Correctly extracted cores, whose flux measurement is inaccurate by at least a factor of 2, or > 2. These sources are not considered correctly extracted cores (see Col. 4), and as such are excluded when estimating completeness levels in Fig. C.1.

(8) Correctly extracted cores, whose flux measurement is inaccurate by a factor between 1.5 and 2, . Roughly detected cores generally have rough measurements.

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.