MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001017658 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/200912109

Limits on the luminosity function of Ly<i>α</i>emitters at<i>z</i>= 7.7

2010· article· en· W2001017658 on OpenAlexaff
Pascale Hibon, Jean-Gabriel Cuby, J. P. Willis, B. Clément, C. Lidman, S. Arnouts, Jean‐Paul Kneib, Chris J. Willott, C. Marmo, H. J. McCracken

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsUniversity of Victoria
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsPhysicsRedshiftAstrophysicsLuminosity functionLuminosityUniverseDark AgesHubble Deep FieldAstronomyReionizationGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims. The Lyα luminosity function (LF) of high-redshift Lyα emitters (LAEs) is one of the few observables of the re-ionization epoch accessible with 8–10 m class telescopes. The evolution of the LAE LF with redshift is dependent upon the physical evolution of LAEs and the ionisation state of the Universe towards the end of the Dark Ages.Methods. We performed a narrow-band imaging program at 1.06 μm using CFHT/WIRCam. The observations target Lyα emitters at redshift z ~ 7.7 in the CFHT-LS D1 field. From these observations we derived a photometric sample of 7 LAE candidates at z ~ 7.7. Results. We derive luminosity functions for the full sample of seven objects and for subsamples of four objects. Assuming the brightest objects in our sample are real, we find that the resulting luminosity function is not consistent with previous work at lower redshifts. More definitive conclusions will require spectroscopic confirmation.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.170 · 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

Citations59
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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