MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055623030 · doi:10.1086/308625

Radical Compression of Cosmic Microwave Background Data

2000· article· en· W2055623030 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCosmic microwave backgroundMultipole expansionSpectral densityCosmic background radiationRobustness (evolution)COSMIC cancer databaseCurvatureAnisotropyObservational cosmology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Powerful constraints on theories can already be inferred from existing CMB anisotropy data. But performing an exact analysis of available data is a complicated task and may become prohibitively so for upcoming experiments with ≳10 4 pixels. We present a method for approximating the likelihood that takes power spectrum constraints, e.g., "band-powers," as inputs. We identify a bias which results if one approximates the probability distribution of the band-power errors as Gaussian—as is the usual practice. This bias can be eliminated by using specific approximations to the non-Gaussian form for the distribution specified by three parameters (the maximum likelihood or mode, curvature or variance, and a third quantity). We advocate the calculation of this third quantity by experimenters, to be presented along with the maximum-likelihood band-power and variance. We use this non-Gaussian form to estimate the power spectrum of the CMB in 11 bands from multipole moment ℓ = 2 (the quadrupole) to ℓ = 3000 from all published band-power data. We investigate the robustness of our power spectrum estimate to changes in these approximations as well as to selective editing of the data.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations271
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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