MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009742384 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/187

A FIRST APPLICATION OF THE ALCOCK-PACZYNSKI TEST TO STACKED COSMIC VOIDS

2012· article· en· W2009742384 on OpenAlexaff
P. M. Sutter, Guilhem Lavaux, B. D. Wandelt, David H. Weinberg

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedshiftGalaxyAstrophysicsVoid (composites)SkyPhysicsCOSMIC cancer databaseDark energyIsotropyRedshift surveyAstronomyCosmologyOpticsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on the first application of the Alcock–Paczynski test to stacked voids in spectroscopic galaxy redshift surveys. We use voids from the Sutter et al. void catalog, which was derived from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 7 main sample and luminous red galaxy catalogs. The construction of that void catalog removes potential shape measurement bias by using a modified version of the ZOBOV algorithm and by removing voids near survey boundaries and masks. We apply the shape-fitting procedure presented in Lavaux & Wandelt to 10 void stacks out to redshift z = 0.36. Combining these measurements, we determine the mean cosmologically induced "stretch" of voids in three redshift bins, with 1σ errors of 5%–15%. The mean stretch is consistent with unity, providing no indication of a distortion induced by peculiar velocities. While the statistical errors are too large to detect the Alcock–Paczynski effect over our limited redshift range, this proof-of-concept analysis defines procedures that can be applied to larger spectroscopic galaxy surveys at higher redshifts to constrain dark energy using the expected statistical isotropy of structures that are minimally affected by uncertainties in galaxy velocity bias.

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)0.036
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.005
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.213
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations134
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207