MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047631166 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/2/170

THE SL2S GALAXY-SCALE GRAVITATIONAL LENS SAMPLE. I. THE ALIGNMENT OF MASS AND LIGHT IN MASSIVE EARLY-TYPE GALAXIES AT<i>z</i>= 0.2-0.9

2012· article· en· W2047631166 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. Gavazzi, Tommaso Treu, Philip J. Marshall, Florence Brault, Andrea Ruff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGravitational lensGalaxyMass distributionDark matterAstronomyWeak gravitational lensingCOSMIC cancer databaseGravitationTelescopeLens (geology)RedshiftOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the relative alignment of mass and light in a sample of 16 massive early-type galaxies at z = 0.2–0.9 that act as strong gravitational lenses. The sample was identified from deep multi-band images obtained as part of the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey and as part of the Strong Lensing Legacy Survey (SL2S). Higher resolution follow-up imaging is available for a subset of 10 systems. We construct gravitational lens models and infer total enclosed mass, elongation, and position angle of the mass distribution. By comparison with the observed distribution of light we infer that there is a substantial amount of external shear with mean value 〈γ ext 〉 = 0.12 ± 0.05, arising most likely from the environment of the SL2S lenses. In a companion paper, we combine these measurements with follow-up Keck spectroscopy to study the evolution of the stellar and dark matter content of early-type galaxies as a function of cosmic time.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations87
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207