MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999803091 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117312

Evolution of the observed Ly<i>α</i>luminosity function from<i>z</i>= 6.5 to<i>z</i>= 7.7: evidence for the epoch of reionization?

2011· article· en· W1999803091 on OpenAlexaff
B. Clément, Jean-Gabriel Cuby, F. Courbin, A. Fontana, W. Freudling, J. P. U. Fynbo, J. Gallego, P. Hibon, Jean‐Paul Kneib, O. Le Fèvre, C. Lidman, R. G. McMahon, B. Milvang‐Jensen, P. Møller, A. F. M. Moorwood, K. Nilsson, L. Pentericci, Bram Venemans, V. Villar, J. P. Willis

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersInstitut national des sciences de l'UniversScience and Technology Facilities CouncilCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueNational Research FoundationAgence Nationale de la RechercheDanmarks GrundforskningsfondSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsReionizationRedshiftPhysicsAstrophysicsLuminosity functionDark AgesIntergalactic mediumLuminosityAstronomyUniverseCosmologyEpoch (astronomy)Galaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims. Lyα emitters (LAEs) can be detected out to very high redshifts during the epoch of reionization. The evolution of the LAE luminosity function with redshift is a direct probe of the Lyα transmission of the intergalactic medium (IGM), and therefore of the IGM neutral-hydrogen fraction. Measuring the Lyα luminosity function (LF) of Lyα emitters at redshift z = 7.7 therefore allows us to constrain the ionizing state of the Universe at this redshift.

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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations55
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207