Spectroscopy of Moderately High Redshift RCS-1 Clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present spectroscopic observations of 11 moderately high-redshift (z~0.7- 1.0) clusters from the first Red-Sequence Cluster Survey (RCS-1). We find excellent agreement between the red-sequence estimated redshift and the spectroscopic redshift, with a scatter of 10% at z>0.7. At the high-redshift end (z>~0.9) of the sample, we find two of the systems selected are projections of pairs of comparably rich systems, with red-sequences too close to discriminate in (R-z') colour. In one of these systems, the two components are close enough to be physically associated. For a subsample of clusters with sufficient spectroscopic members, we examine the correlation between B_gcR (optical richness) and the dynamical mass inferred from the velocity dispersion. We find these measurements to be compatible, within the relatively large uncertainties, with the correlation established at lower redshift for the X-ray selected CNOC1 clusters and also for a lower redshift sample of RCS-1 clusters. Confirmation of this and calibration of the scatter in the relation will require larger samples of clusters at these and higher redshifts. [abridged]
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".