MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037392005 · doi:10.1086/324298

Multiple Peaks in the Angular Power Spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background: Significance and Consequences for Cosmology

2002· article· en· W2037392005 on OpenAlexaff
P. de Bernardis, P. A. R. Ade, J. J. Bock, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, A. Boscaleri, K. Coble, Carlo Contaldi, B. P. Crill, G. De Troia, P. Farese, K. Ganga, M. Giacometti, E. Hivon, V. V. Hristov, A. Iacoangeli, A. H. Jaffe, W. C. Jones, A. E. Lange, L. Martinis, S. Masi, P. Mason, P. Mauskopf, A. Melchiorri, T. E. Montroy, C. B. Netterfield, E. Pascale, F. Piacentini, D. Pogosyan, G. Polenta, F. Pongetti, S. Prunet, G. Romeo, J. E. Ruhl, F. Scaramuzzi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCosmic microwave backgroundPhysicsReionizationAmplitudeSpectral densitySpectral indexCosmologyRobustness (evolution)Adiabatic processParameter spaceCosmic varianceCosmic background radiationCOSMIC cancer databaseAstrophysicsMaximizationStatisticsStatistical physicsMathematicsSpectral lineRedshiftQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three peaks and two dips have been detected in the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background by the BOOMERANG experiment, at l = (213 ), (541 ), (845 ) and l = (416 ), (750 ), respectively. Using model-independent analyses, we find that all five features are statistically significant, and we measure their location and amplitude. These are consistent with the adiabatic inflationary model. We also calculate the mean and variance of the peak and dip locations and amplitudes in a large seven-dimensional parameter space of such models, which gives good agreement with the model-independent estimates. We forecast where the next few peaks and dips should be found if the basic paradigm is correct. We test the robustness of our results by comparing Bayesian marginalization techniques on this space with likelihood maximization techniques applied to a second seven-dimensional cosmological parameter space, using an independent computational pipeline, and find excellent agreement: Ω tot = 1.02 versus 1.04 ± 0.05, Ω b h 2 = 0.022 versus 0.019 , and n s = 0.96 versus 0.90 ± 0.08. The determination of the best fit by the maximization procedure effectively ignores nonzero optical depth of reionization τ C > 0, and the difference in primordial spectral index n s between the two methods is thus a consequence of the strong correlation of n s with the τ C .

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations351
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207