MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1546338243 · doi:10.1086/345981

The Cluster Mass Function from Early Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data: Cosmological Implications

2003· article· en· W1546338243 on OpenAlexaff
Neta A. Bahcall, Feng Dong, Paul Bode, Rita Kim, James Annis, Timothy A. McKay, Sarah M. Hansen, Josh Schroeder, James E. Gunn, Jeremiah P. Ostriker, Marc Postman, Robert C. Nichol, C. J. Miller, Tomotsugu Goto, J. Brinkmann, G. R. Knapp, Don O. Lamb, Donald P. Schneider, Michael S. Vogeley, Donald G. York

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkyPhysicsCluster (spacecraft)Normalization (sociology)AstrophysicsRedshiftGalaxyAmplitudeGalaxy clusterDegeneracy (biology)Magnitude (astronomy)Optics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mass function of clusters of galaxies is determined from 400 deg^2 of early commissioning imaging data of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey; ~300 clusters in the redshift range z = 0.1 - 0.2 are used. Clusters are selected using two independent selection methods: a Matched Filter and a red-sequence color magnitude technique. The two methods yield consistent results. The cluster mass function is compared with large-scale cosmological simulations. We find a best-fit cluster normalization relation of sigma_8*omega_m^0.6 = 0.33 +- 0.03 (for 0.1 ~< omega_m ~< 0.4), or equivalently sigma_8 = (0.16/omega_m)^0.6. The amplitude of this relation is significantly lower than the previous canonical value, implying that either omega_m is lower than previously expected (omega_m = 0.16 if sigma_8 = 1) or sigma_8 is lower than expected (sigma_8 = 0.7 if omega_m = 0.3). The best-fit mass function parameters are omega_m = 0.19 (+0.08,-0.07) and sigma_8 = 0.9 (+0.3,-0.2). High values of omega_m (>= 0.4) and low sigma_8 (=< 0.6) are excluded at >~ 2 sigma.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations145
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207