MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044352461 · doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/07/016

The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: cross correlation with<i>Planck</i>maps

2014· article· en· W2044352461 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsPlanckCosmic microwave backgroundCosmologySpectral densityObservational cosmologyCalibrationCosmic background radiationSouth Pole TelescopeAmplitude

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the temperature power spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background obtained by cross-correlating maps from the Atacama Cosmology Telescope (ACT) at 148 and 218 GHz with maps from the Planck satellite at 143 and 217 GHz, in two overlapping regions covering 592 square degrees. We find excellent agreement between the two datasets at both frequencies, quantified using the variance of the residuals between the ACT power spectra and the ACT × Planck cross-spectra. We use these cross-correlations to measure the calibration of the ACT data at 148 and 218 GHz relative to Planck, to 0.7% and 2% precision respectively. We find no evidence for anisotropy in the calibration parameter. We compare the Planck 353 GHz power spectrum with the measured amplitudes of dust and cosmic infrared background (CIB) of ACT data at 148 and 218 GHz. We also compare planet and point source measurements from the two experiments.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations32
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cosmology and Astroparticle PhysicsSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207