MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019789687 · doi:10.1086/320679

High-Latitude Galactic Dust Emission in the BOOMERANG Maps

2001· article· en· W2019789687 on OpenAlexaff
S. Masi, P. A. R. Ade, J. J. Bock, A. Boscaleri, B. P. Crill, P. de Bernardis, M. Giacometti, E. Hivon, V. V. Hristov, A. E. Lange, P. Mauskopf, T. E. Montroy, C. B. Netterfield, E. Pascale, F. Piacentini, S. Prunet, J. E. Ruhl

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCosmic microwave backgroundAstrophysicsBrightness temperatureAstronomyMicrowaveBrightnessCosmic dustLatitudeOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present millimeter-wave observations obtained by the BOOMERANG (Balloon Observations Of Millimetric Extragalactic Radiation ANd Geophysics) experiment of Galactic emission at intermediate and high ( b < -20°) Galactic latitudes. We find that this emission is well correlated with extrapolated dust maps and is spectrally consistent with thermal emission from interstellar dust (ISD). The ISD brightness in the 410 GHz map has an angular power spectrum c l ~ l -β with 2 ≲ β ≲ 3. At 150 GHz and at multipoles l ~ 200, the angular power spectrum of the IRAS -correlated dust signal is estimated to be l ( l + 1) c l /2π = 3.7 ± 2.9 μK 2 . This is negligible with respect to the cosmic microwave background (CMB) signal measured by the same experiment l ( l + 1) c l /2π = 4700 ± 540 μK 2 . For the uncorrelated dust signal, we set an upper limit to the contribution to the CMB power at 150 GHz and l ~ 200 of l ( l + 1) c l /2π < 3 μK 2 at 95% CL.

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)0.000
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations45
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207