MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A SCUBA/Spitzer investigation of the far-infrared extragalactic background

2007· article· en· W2029714897 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. Dye, S. A. Eales, M. L. N. Ashby, Jiasheng Huang, Eiichi Egami, M. Brodwin, S. J. Lilly, Tracy Webb

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCalifornia Institute of TechnologyJet Propulsion LaboratoryNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsFlux (metallurgy)RedshiftSpitzer Space TelescopeGalaxySource countsInfraredAstronomyLuminous infrared galaxyTelescope

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have measured the contribution of submillimetre and mid-infrared sources to the extragalactic background radiation at 70 and 160 μm. Specifically, we have stacked flux in 70- and 160-μm Spitzer Space Telescope (Spitzer) observations of the Canada–United Kingdom Deep Submillimetre Survey 14-h field at the positions of 850-μm sources detected by SCUBA and also 8- and 24-μm sources detected by Spitzer. We find that per source, the SCUBA galaxies are the strongest and the 8-μm sources the weakest contributors to the background flux at both 70 and 160 μm. Our estimate of the contribution of the SCUBA sources is higher than previous estimates. However, expressed as a total contribution, the full 8-μm source catalogue accounts for twice the total 24-μm source contribution and ∼10 times the total SCUBA source contribution. The 8-μm sources account for the majority of the background radiation at 160 μm with a flux of 0.87 ± 0.16 MJy sr−1 and at least a third at 70 μm with a flux of 0.103 ± 0.019 MJy sr−1. These measurements are consistent with current lower limits on the background at 70 and 160 μm. Finally, we have investigated the 70- and 160-μm emission from the 8- and 24-μm sources as a function of redshift. We find that the average 70-μm flux per 24-μm source and the average 160-μm flux per 8- and 24-μm source is constant over all redshifts, up to z∼ 4. In contrast, the low-redshift half (z < 1) of the of 8-μm sample contributes approximately four times the total 70-μm flux of the high-redshift half. These trends can be explained by a single non-evolving SED.

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.205
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

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→