MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991620768 · doi:10.1086/381217

The Canada‐UK Deep Submillimeter Survey. VII. Optical and Near‐Infrared Identifications for the 14 Hour Field

2003· article· en· W1991620768 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tracy Webb, S. J. Lilly, D. L. Clements, S. Eales, Min S. Yun, M. Brodwin, L. Dunne, W. K. Gear

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedshiftAstrophysicsPhysicsPopulationInfraredFlux (metallurgy)Redshift surveyLimit (mathematics)AstronomyGalaxyHubble Deep FieldObservational cosmologyDemographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the multiwavelength identifications for 23 sources in the Canada-UK Deep Submillimeter Survey (CUDSS) 14 h field. The identifications have been selected on the basis of radio and near-infrared data, and we argue that, to our observational limits, both are effective at selecting the correct counterparts of the SCUBA sources. We discuss the properties of these identifications and find that they are very red in near-infrared color, with many classified as extremely red objects, and show disturbed morphologies. Using the entire CUDSS catalog of 50 sources, we use a combination of spectroscopic redshifts (four objects), 1.4 GHz : 850 μm flux ratio redshift estimates (10 objects), and redshift lower limits based on nondetections at 1.4 GHz (the rest of the sample) to estimate a lower limit on the median redshift of the population of z med > 1.4. Working from simple models and using the properties of the secure identifications, we discuss general and tentative constraints on the redshift distribution and the expected colors and magnitudes of the entire population.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.967
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations58
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207