MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029510884 · doi:10.1086/497635

Spectra of High-Redshift Type Ia Supernovae and a Comparison with Their Low-Redshift Counterparts

2005· article· en· W2029510884 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupernovaRedshiftGalaxySpectral lineCosmologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(THE SUPERNOVA COSMOLOGY PROJECT) We present spectra for 14 high-redshift (0.17 < z < 0.83) supernovae, which were discovered by the Supernova Cosmology Project as part of a campaign to measure cosmological parameters. The spectra are used to determine the redshift and classify the supernova type, essential information if the supernovae are to be used for cosmological studies. Redshifts were derived either from the spectrum of the host galaxy or from the spectrum of the supernova itself. We present evidence that these supernovae are of Type Ia by matching to spectra of nearby supernovae. We find that the dates of the spectra relative to maximum light determined from this fitting process are consistent with the dates determined from the photometric light curves, and moreover the spectral time-sequence for SNe Type Ia at low and high redshift is indistinguishable. We also show that the expansion velocities measured from blueshifted Ca H&K are consistent with those measured for low-redshift Type Ia supernovae. From these first-level quantitative comparisons we find no evidence for evolution in SNIa properties between these low- and high-redshift samples. Thus even though our samples may not be complete, we conclude that there is a population of

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.792

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations59
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207