MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2028250700 · doi:10.1063/1.2774890

The Supernova Type Ia Rate Evolution with SNLS

2007· article· en· W2028250700 on OpenAlexafffund
James D. Neill, M. Sullivan, D. Balam, C. J. Pritchet, D. A. Howell, K. Perrett, P. Astier, É. Aubourg, S. Basa, R. G. Carlberg, A. Conley, S. Fabbro, D. Fouchez, J. Guy, I. Hook, R. Pain, N. Palanque‐Delabrouille, N. Regnault, J. Rich, R. Taillet, G. Aldering, P. Antilogus, V. Arsenijevic, C. Balland, S. Baumont, J. Bronder, Richard S. Ellis, M. Filiol, A. C. Gonçalves, D. Hardin, M. Kowalski, C. Lidman, V. Lusset, M. Mouchet, A. Mourão, S. Perlmutter, P. Ripoche, David J. Schlegel, C. Tao

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Victoria
FundersNuclear PhysicsFrance-Berkeley FundInstitut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des ParticulesOffice of ScienceCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJohns Hopkins UniversityU.S. Department of EnergyU.S. Department of Defense
KeywordsSupernovaAstrophysicsRedshiftPhysicsGalaxyComponent (thermodynamics)Type (biology)AstronomyBiologyThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a progress report on a project to derive the evolution of the volumetric supernova Type Ia rate from the Supernova Legacy Survey. Our preliminary estimate of the rate evolution divides the sample from Neill et al. into two redshift bins: 0.2 < z < 0.4, and 0.4 < z < 0.6. We extend this by adding a bin from the sample analyzed in Sullivan et al. in the range 0.6 < z < 0.75 from the same time period. We compare the derived trend with previously published rates and a supernova Type Ia production model having two components: one component associated closely with star formation and an additional component associated with host galaxy mass. Our observed trend is consistent with this model, which predicts a rising SN Ia rate out to at least 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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207