MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2021729861 · doi:10.1086/497562

Keck Deep Fields. I. Observations, Reductions, and the Selection of Faint Star‐forming Galaxies at Redshifts<i>z</i>∼ 4, 3, and 2

2005· article· en· W2021729861 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsDominion Astrophysical ObservatoryHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedshiftGalaxySkyLuminosityLuminosity functionGalaxy formation and evolutionHubble Deep FieldSelection (genetic algorithm)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a very deep, lim ~ 27, multicolor imaging survey of very faint star-forming galaxies at z ~ 4, 3, 2.2, and 1.7. This survey, carried out on the Keck I telescope, uses the very same U n G I filter system that is employed by the Steidel team to select galaxies at these redshifts and thus allows us to construct identically selected but much fainter samples. However, our survey reaches ~1.5 mag deeper than the work of Steidel and his group, letting us probe substantially below the characteristic luminosity L * and thus study the properties and redshift evolution of the faint component of the high- z galaxy population. The survey covers 169 arcmin 2 in three spatially independent patches on the sky and—to ≤ 27—contains 427 G I -selected z ~ 4 Lyman break galaxies, 1481 U n G -selected z ~ 3 Lyman break galaxies, 2417 U n G -selected z ~ 2.2 star-forming galaxies, and 2043 U n G -selected z ~ 1.7 star-forming galaxies. In this paper, the first in a series, we introduce the survey, describe our observing and data reduction strategies, and outline the selection of our z ~ 4, 3, 2.2, and 1.7 samples.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations32
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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