MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2014727289 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/734/1/52

EFFECTS OF STRONG GRAVITATIONAL LENSING ON MILLIMETER-WAVE GALAXY NUMBER COUNTS

2011· article· en· W2014727289 on OpenAlexaff
Yashar Hezaveh, G. P. Holder

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxyGravitational lensHaloSource countsRedshiftMillimeterFlux (metallurgy)Weak gravitational lensingLens (geology)AstronomyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the effects of strong lensing on the observed number counts of millimeter sources using a ray-tracing simulation and two number count models of unlensed sources. We employ a quantitative treatment of maximum attainable magnification factor depending on the physical size of the sources, also accounting for effects of lens halo ellipticity. We calculate predicted number counts and redshift distributions of millimeter galaxies including the effects of strong lensing and compare with the recent source count measurements of the South Pole Telescope (SPT). The predictions have large uncertainties, especially the details of the mass distribution in lens galaxies and the finite extent of sources, but the SPT observations are in good agreement with predictions. The sources detected by SPT are predicted to largely consist of strongly lensed galaxies at z > 2. The typical magnifications of these sources strongly depend on both the assumed unlensed source counts and the flux of the observed sources.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.219
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

Citations61
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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