Selection Effects in the Redshift Distribution of Gamma-Ray Bursts and Associated Quasi-stellar Objects and Active Galaxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Redshift distributions of extragalactic objects have been suggested to exhibit periodicities. But based on which periodicities are claimed, peaks and troughs have been shown to be artifacts of observational and analytical selection effects. The long debate over the matter has so far been concerned mostly with quasi-stellar objects (QSOs). However, the claim for periodicities has now been extended to gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), another species of extragalactic objects with high redshifts. The redshift distribution of the 33 objects (23 GRBs and associated nine QSOs and one active galaxy) for which a periodicity is claimed (Burbidge), with one new GRB redshift added and one too many QSO redshift eliminated, is compared with distributions of three selection effect parameters. It is shown that the peaks and troughs in the redshift distribution of the 33 objects have appeared as a result of observational and analytical selection effects. This leads to the conclusion that there is no periodicity in the distribution.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".