Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Observations of Faraday rotation for extragalactic sources probe magnetic fields both inside and outside the Milky Way. Building on our earlier estimate of the Galactic contribution, we set out to estimate the extragalactic contributions. We discuss the problems involved; in particular, we point out that taking the difference between the observed values and the Galactic foreground reconstruction is not a good estimate for the extragalactic contributions. We point out a degeneracy between the contributions to the observed values due to extragalactic magnetic fields and observational noise and comment on the dangers of over-interpreting an estimate without taking into account its uncertainty information. To overcome these difficulties, we develop an extended reconstruction algorithm based on the assumption that the observational uncertainties are accurately described for a subset of the data, which can overcome the degeneracy with the extragalactic contributions. We present a probabilistic derivation of the algorithm and demonstrate its performance using a simulation, yielding a high quality reconstruction of the Galactic Faraday rotation foreground, a precise estimate of the typical extragalactic contribution, and a well-defined probabilistic description of the extragalactic contribution for each data point. We then apply this reconstruction technique to a catalog of Faraday rotation observations for extragalactic sources. The analysis is done for several different scenarios, for which we consider the error bars of different subsets of the data to accurately describe the observational uncertainties. By comparing the results, we argue that a split that singles out only data near the Galactic poles is the most robust approach. We find that the dispersion of extragalactic contributions to observed Faraday depths is most likely lower than 7 rad/m2, in agreement with earlier results, and that the extragalactic contribution to an individual data point is poorly constrained by the data in most cases.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it