MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Assessing the dust selection bias in quasar absorbers at : Zn/Fe abundances in a radio-selected sample

2009· article· en· W1975785613 on OpenAlexaff
Sara L. Ellison, Sebastián López

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsRedshiftAstrophysicsQuasarLambdaEquivalent widthSpectral lineLine (geometry)Absorption (acoustics)Emission spectrumAbsorption spectroscopyAnalytical Chemistry (journal)AstronomyGalaxyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Complete Optical and Radio Absorption Line System (CORALS) survey has previously been used to demonstrate that the number density, gas and metals content of z > 1.6 damped Lyman alpha (DLA) systems is not significantly underestimated in magnitude limited surveys. In this paper, a sample of strong Mg ii absorbers selected from the optically complete 0.7 < z < 1.6 CORALS sample of Ellison et al. is used to assess the potential of dust bias at intermediate redshifts. From echelle spectra of all CORALS absorbers with Mg iiλ2796 and Fe iiλ2600 rest equivalent widths >0.5 Å in the redshift range 0.7 < z < 1.6, we determine column densities of Zn, Cr, Fe, Mn and Si. The range of dust-to-metals ratios and inferred number density of DLAs from the D-index are consistent with optical samples. We also report the discovery of four new absorbers in the echelle data in the redshift range 1.7 < z < 2.0, two of which are confirmed DLAs and one is a sub-DLA, whilst the Lyα line is not covered for the fourth.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→