MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1509168094 · doi:10.1086/319636

MACHO Project Limits on Black Hole Dark Matter in the 1–30 [ITAL]M[/ITAL][TINF]⊙[/TINF] Range

2001· article· en· W1509168094 on OpenAlexaff
C. Alcock, R. A. Allsman, D. R. Alves, T. S. Axelrod, A. C. Becker, D. P. Bennett, K. H. Cook, Neal Dalal, A. J. Drake, K. C. Freeman, Marla Geha, K. Griest, M. J. Lehner, S. L. Marshall, D. Minniti, C. A. Nelson, B. A. Peterson, Piotr Popowski, M. R. Pratt, Peter J. Quinn, C. W. Stubbs, William J. Sutherland, A. Tomaney, T. Vandehei, D. L. Welch

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravitational microlensingPhysicsDark matterAstrophysicsHaloDark matter haloGalactic haloLarge Magellanic CloudBaryonic dark matterAstronomyGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on a search for long-duration microlensing events toward the Large Magellanic Cloud. We find none and therefore put limits on the contribution of high-mass objects to the Galactic dark matter. At a 95% confidence level, we exclude objects in the mass range of 0.3-30.0 M ☉ from contributing more than 4 × 10 11 M ☉ to the Galactic halo. Combined with earlier results, this means that objects with masses under 30 M ☉ cannot make up the entire dark matter halo if the halo is of typical size. For a typical dark halo, objects with masses under 10 M ☉ contribute less than 40% of the dark matter.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.005

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
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

Citations343
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207