MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1874595694 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2015/05/040

Sloan Digital Sky Survey III photometric quasar clustering: probing the initial conditions of the Universe

2015· article· en· W1874595694 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityYork UniversityScience and Technology Facilities CouncilCarnegie Mellon UniversityOffice of ScienceJohns Hopkins UniversityOhio State UniversityNew Mexico State UniversityUniversity of PortsmouthYale UniversityVanderbilt UniversityAlexander von Humboldt-StiftungJohn Templeton FoundationNational Science FoundationUniversity of WashingtonAlfred P. Sloan FoundationNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationPrinceton UniversityBrookhaven National LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsSkyQuasarCluster analysisRedshiftGalaxyCosmologyEstimatorUniverseGalaxy cluster

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Here, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey has surveyed 14,555 square degrees of the sky, and delivered over a trillion pixels of imaging data. We present the large-scale clustering of 1.6 million quasars between z=0.5 and z=2.5 that have been classified from this imaging, representing the highest density of quasars ever studied for clustering measurements. This data set spans 0~ 11,00 square degrees and probes a volume of 80 h<sup>–3</sup> Gpc<sup>3</sup>. In principle, such a large volume and medium density of tracers should facilitate high-precision cosmological constraints. We measure the angular clustering of photometrically classified quasars using an optimal quadratic estimator in four redshift slices with an accuracy of ~ 25% over a bin width of δ<sub>l</sub> ~ 10–15 on scales corresponding to matter-radiation equality and larger (0ℓ ~ 2–3).

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.261
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 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

Citations62
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle PhysicsSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207