MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980752012 · doi:10.1071/as11027

Detection Thresholds and Bias Correction in Polarized Intensity

2011· article· en· W1980752012 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel J. George, J. M. Stil, Ben Keller

Bibliographic record

VenuePublications of the Astronomical Society of Australia · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsGaussianMonte Carlo methodPolarization (electrochemistry)StatisticsStokes parametersIntensity (physics)Faraday effectFaraday cageOpticsComputational physicsMathematicsQuantum mechanicsScattering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Detection thresholds in polarized intensity and polarization bias correction are investigated for surveys where the polarization information is obtained from rotation measure (RM) synthesis. Considering unresolved sources with a single RM, a detection threshold of 8 σ QU applied to the Faraday spectrum will retrieve the RM with a false detection rate less than 10 −4 , but polarized intensity is more strongly biased than Ricean statistics suggest. For a detection threshold of 5 σ QU , the false detection rate increases to ∼4%, depending also on λ 2 coverage and the extent of the Faraday spectrum. Non-Gaussian noise in Stokes Q and U due to imperfect imaging and calibration can be represented by a distribution that is the sum of a Gaussian and an exponential. The non-Gaussian wings of the noise distribution increase the false detection rate in polarized intensity by orders of magnitude. Monte Carlo simulations assuming non-Gaussian noise in Q and U give false detection rates at 8 σ QU similar to Ricean false detection rates at 4.9 σ QU .

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations60
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublications of the Astronomical Society of AustraliaSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207