MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050200918 · doi:10.1086/527281

A Global Probe of Cosmic Magnetic Fields to High Redshifts

2008· article· en· W2050200918 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedshiftFaraday effectMagnetic fieldQuasarGalaxyUniverseCOSMIC cancer databaseRadio galaxyField (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Faraday rotation (rotation measure [RM]) probes of magnetic fields in the universe are sensitive to cosmological and evolutionary effects as z increases beyond ∼1 because of the scalings of electron density and magnetic fields, and the growth in the number of expected intersections with galaxy-scale intervenors, dN/dz. In this new global analysis of an unprecedented large sample of RMs of high-latitude quasars extending out to z ∼3.7, we find that the distribution of RM broadens with redshift in the 20-80 rad m−2 range, despite the (1 + z)−2 wavelength dilution expected in the observed Faraday rotation. Our results indicate that the universe becomes increasingly 'Faraday-opaque' to sources beyond z ∼ 2; that is, as z increases, progressively fewer sources are found with a 'small' RM in the observer's frame. This is in contrast to sources at z≥1. They suggest that the environments of galaxies were significantly magnetized at high redshifts, with magnetic field strengths that were at least as strong within a few Gyr of the big bang as at the current epoch. We separately investigate a simple unevolving toy model in which the RM is produced by Mg II absorber systems, and find that it can approximately reproduce the observed trend with redshift. An additional possibility is that the intrinsic RM associated with the radio sources was much higher in the past, and we show that this is not a trivial consequence of the higher radio luminosities of the high-redshift sources.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.248

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations159
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207