MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1999383621 · doi:10.1086/512599

A Systematic Search for High Surface Brightness Giant Arcs in a Sloan Digital Sky Survey Cluster Sample

2007· article· en· W1999383621 on OpenAlexaff
J. Estrada, J. Annis, H. T. Diehl, Patrick B. Hall, T. Las, H. Lin, Martı́n Makler, K. W. Merritt, V. Scarpine, S. Allam, D. L. Tucker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkySurface brightnessArc (geometry)BrightnessCluster (spacecraft)AstrophysicsSample (material)GalaxySelection (genetic algorithm)PhysicsComputer scienceComputer graphics (images)OpticsArtificial intelligenceMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the results of a search for gravitationally lensed giant arcs conducted on a sample of 825 SDSS galaxy clusters. Both a visual inspection of the images and an automated search were performed, and no arcs were found. This result is used to set an upper limit on the arc probability per cluster. We present selection functions for our survey, in the form of arc detection efficiency curves plotted as functions of arc parameters, for both the visual inspection and the automated search. The selection function is such that we are sensitive only to long, high surface brightness arcs with g -band surface brightness μ g ≤ 24.8 and length-to-width ratio l / w ≥ 10. Our upper limits on the arc probability are compatible with previous arc searches. Finally, we report on a serendipitous discovery of a giant arc in the SDSS data, known inside the SDSS Collaboration as Hall's arc.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations53
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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