MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988410625 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/2/1307

THE X-RAY CLUSTER NORMALIZATION OF THE MATTER POWER SPECTRUM

2009· article· en· W1988410625 on OpenAlexaff
J. P. Henry, A. E. Evrard, Henk Hoekstra, Arif Babul, Andisheh Mahdavi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNormalization (sociology)PhysicsSpectral densityCluster (spacecraft)Galaxy clusterMatter power spectrumAstrophysicsGalaxyStatistical physicsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number density of galaxy clusters provides tight statistical constraints on the matter fluctuation power spectrum normalization, traditionally phrased in terms of sigma_8, the root mean square mass fluctuation in spheres with radius 8 h^-1 Mpc. We present constraints on sigma_8 and the total matter density Omega_m0 from local cluster counts as a function of X-ray temperature, taking care to incorporate and minimize systematic errors that plagued previous work with this method. In particular, we present new determinations of the cluster luminosity - temperature and mass - temperature relations, including their intrinsic scatter, and a determination of the Jenkins mass function parameters for the same mass definition as the mass - temperature calibration. Marginalizing over the 12 uninteresting parameters associated with this method, we find that the local cluster temperature function implies sigma_8 (Omega_m0/0.32)^alpha = 0.86+/-0.04 with alpha = 0.30 (0.41) for Omega_m0 < 0.32 (Omega_mo > 0.32) (68% confidence for two parameters). This result agrees with a wide range of recent independent determinations, and we find no evidence of any additional sources of systematic error for the X-ray cluster temperature function determination of the matter power spectrum normalization. The joint WMAP5 + cluster constraints are: Omega_m0 = 0.30+0.03/-0.02 and sigma_8 = 0.85+0.04/-0.02 (68% confidence for two parameters).

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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations151
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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