MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047206943 · doi:10.1086/503533

Measurement of Ω<sub><i>m</i></sub>, Ω<sub>Λ</sub>from a Blind Analysis of Type Ia Supernovae with CMAGIC: Using Color Information to Verify the Acceleration of the Universe

2006· article· en· W2047206943 on OpenAlexaff
A. Conley, G. Goldhaber, L. Wang, G. Aldering, R. Amanullah, Eugene D. Commins, V. Fadeyev, G. Folatelli, G. Garavini, R. Gibbons, A. Goobar, D. E. Groom, I. Hook, D. A. Howell, R. A. Knop, M. Kowalski, N. Kuznetsova, C. Lidman, S. Nobili, P. Nugent, R. Pain, S. Perlmutter, E. Smith, A. L. Spadafora, V. Stanishev, M. Strovink, R. C. Thomas, W. M. Wood‐Vasey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsSupernovaLuminosityRedshiftCosmologyGalaxyMagnitude (astronomy)AccelerationUniverseLight curveAbsolute magnitudeShape of the universeDark energyType (biology)Cosmological constantTheoretical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present measurements of Ω m and Ω Λ from a blind analysis of 21 high-redshift supernovae using a new technique (CMAGIC) for fitting the multicolor light curves of Type Ia supernovae, first introduced by Wang and coworkers. CMAGIC takes advantage of the remarkably simple behavior of Type Ia supernovae on color-magnitude diagrams and has several advantages over current techniques based on maximum magnitudes. Among these are a reduced sensitivity to host galaxy dust extinction, a shallower luminosity-width relation, and the relative simplicity of the fitting procedure. This allows us to provide a cross-check of previous supernova cosmology results, despite the fact that current data sets were not observed in a manner optimized for CMAGIC. We describe the details of our novel blindness procedure, which is designed to prevent experimenter bias. The data are broadly consistent with the picture of an accelerating universe and agree with a flat universe within 1.7 σ, including systematics. We also compare the CMAGIC results directly with those of a maximum magnitude fit to the same supernovae, finding that CMAGIC favors more acceleration at the 1.6 σ level, including systematics and the correlation between the two measurements. A fit for w assuming a flat universe yields a value that is consistent with a cosmological constant within 1.2 σ.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations74
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207