MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018583283 · doi:10.1093/pasj/60.sp2.s517

AKARI/IRC Deep Survey in the North Ecliptic Pole Region

2008· article· en· W2018583283 on OpenAlexaff
Takehiko Wada, Hideo Matsuhara, Shinki Oyabu, Toshinobu Takagi, Hyung Mok Lee, Myungshin Im, Youichi Ohyama, Tomotsugu Goto, Chris Pearson, G. J. White, S. Serjeant, K. Wada, H. Hanami

Bibliographic record

VenuePublications of the Astronomical Society of Japan · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsSkyGalaxyAstronomySource countsPoint sourceEclipticConfusionWavelengthRedshiftOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We have made a deep and wide imaging survey with all nine AKARI/IRC bands from 2 to 24$\mu$m within a half degree of the North Ecliptic Pole. The survey covered a circular area of 0.38deg$^2$ centered at RA $=$ 17h56m, Dec $=$ 66°37' where a deep optical multi-band survey has been conducted by Subaru/Suprime-Cam. The 5$\sigma$ sensitivity of the survey for point sources is 11.0, 48, 117, and 275$\mu$Jy at wavelengths 3, 7, 15, and 24$\mu$m, respectively. The survey is limited by sky noise at wavelengths from 7 to 24$\mu$m, and limited by source confusion from 2 to 4$\mu$m. We have also made a point source catalog at each band, consisting of more than 5000 sources with a 50% completeness limit of 93$\mu$Jy at 15$\mu$m. Our results are consistent with the pilot survey at faint fluxes and has better statistical significance at the bright fluxes. This is the first near- and mid-infrared sub-mJy extragalactic survey with contiguous wavelength coverage from 2 to 24$\mu$m and a large band-merged catalogue. It will provide powerful and unique diagnostics of obscured star-formation and AGN activities in the galaxies up to $z=2$.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations68
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublications of the Astronomical Society of JapanSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207