MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1995898085 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/756/1/72

A FULLY IDENTIFIED SAMPLE OF AEGIS20 MICROJANSKY RADIO SOURCES

2012· article· en· W1995898085 on OpenAlexaff
S. P. Willner, M. L. N. Ashby, P. Barmby, S. C. Chapman, Alison L. Coil, Michael C. Cooper, Jiasheng Huang, R. J. Ivison, David C. Koo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsRedshiftAstrophysicsPhysicsGalaxyActive galactic nucleusAstronomySample (material)Radio galaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infrared 3.6–8 μm images of the Extended Groth Strip yield plausible counterpart identifications for all but one of 510 radio sources in the AEGIS20 S (1.4 GHz) > 50 μJy sample. This is the first such deep sample that has been effectively 100% identified. Achieving the same identification rate at R band would require observations reaching R AB > 27. Spectroscopic redshifts are available for 46% of the sample and photometric redshifts for an additional 47%. Almost all of the sources with 3.6 μm AB magnitudes brighter than 19 have spectroscopic redshifts z < 1.1, while fainter objects predominantly have photometric redshifts with 1 ≲ z ≲ 3. Unlike more powerful radio sources that are hosted by galaxies having large stellar masses within a relatively narrow range, the AEGIS20 counterparts have stellar masses spanning more than a factor of 10 at z ∼ 1. The sources are roughly 10%–15% starbursts at z ≲ 0.5 and 20%–25% active galactic nuclei mostly at z > 1 with the remainder of uncertain nature.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→