GEMINI/GMOS SPECTROSCOPY OF 26 STRONG-LENSING-SELECTED GALAXY CLUSTER CORES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present results from a spectroscopic program targeting 26 strong-lensing cluster cores that were visually identified in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) and the Second Red-Sequence Cluster Survey (RCS-2). The 26 galaxy cluster lenses span a redshift range of 0.2 < z < 0.65, and our spectroscopy reveals 69 unique background sources with redshifts as high as z = 5.200. We also identify redshifts for 262 cluster member galaxies and measure the velocity dispersions and dynamical masses for 18 clusters where we have redshifts for N >= 10 cluster member galaxies. We account for the expected biases in dynamical masses of strong-lensing-selected clusters as predicted by results from numerical simulations and discuss possible sources of bias in our observations. The median dynamical mass of the 18 clusters with N >= 10 spectroscopic cluster members is M Vir = 7.84 Ãâ 1014 M sun h -1 0.7, which is somewhat higher than predictions for strong-lensing-selected clusters in simulations. The disagreement is not significant considering the large uncertainty in our dynamical data, systematic uncertainties in the velocity dispersion calibration, and limitations of the theoretical modeling. Nevertheless our study represents an important first step toward characterizing large samples of clusters that are identified in a systematic way as systems exhibiting dramatic strong-lensing features. Based on observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory, which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: The United States, The United Kingdom, Canada, Chile, Australia, Brazil, and Argentina, with supporting data collected at the Subaru Telescope, operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan; the 2.5 m Nordic Optical Telescope, operated on the island of La Palma jointly by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias; the 3.5 m Wisconsin-Indian-Yale-NOAO Telescope, at the WIYN Observatory which is a joint facility of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Indiana University, Yale University, and the National Optical Astronomy Observatory; and the Apache Point Observatory 3.5 m telescope, which is owned and operated by the Astrophysical Research Consortium.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".