MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052945763 · doi:10.1093/pasj/62.3.697

The Effectiveness of Mid IR / Far IR Blind, Wide Area, Spectral Surveys in Breaking the Confusion Limit

2010· article· en· W2052945763 on OpenAlexaff
Gwenifer Raymond, K. G. Isaak, Dave Clements, A. Rykala, Chris Pearson

Bibliographic record

VenuePublications of the Astronomical Society of Japan · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsRedshiftPhysicsConfusionGalaxyAstrophysicsAstronomyLimit (mathematics)SpectrometerRemote sensingOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Source confusion defines a practical depth to which to take large-area extragalactic surveys. 3D imaging spectrometers with positional as well as spectral information, however, potentially provide a means by which to use line emission to break the traditional confusion limit. In this paper we present the results of our investigation into the effectiveness of mid/far infrared, wide-area spectroscopic surveys in breaking the confusion limit. We use SAFARI, a FIR imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer concept for the proposed JAXA-led SPICA mission, as a test case. We generate artificial skies representative of 100 SAFARI footprints and use a fully-automated redshift determination method to retrieve redshifts for both spatially and spectrally confused sources for bright-end and burst mode galaxy evolution models. We find we are able to retrieve accurate redshifts for 38/54% of the brightest spectrally confused sources, with continuum fluxes as much as an order of magnitude below the 120 $\mu$m photometric confusion limit. In addition we also recover accurate redshifts for 38/29% of the second brightest spectrally confused sources. Our results suggest that deep, spectral line surveys with SAFARI can break the traditional photometric confusion limit, and will also not only resolve, but provide redshifts for, a large number of previously inaccessible galaxies. To conclude we discuss some of the limitations of the technique, as well as further work.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations9
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublications of the Astronomical Society of JapanSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207