MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2068873867 · doi:10.1086/592820

Information Content in the Galaxy Angular Power Spectrum from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and Its Implication on Weak-Lensing Analysis

2008· article· en· W2068873867 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpectral densitySkyGalaxyRedshiftMultipole expansionWeak gravitational lensingAngular spectrum methodGaussianStrong gravitational lensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze the photometric redshift catalog of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 5 (SDSS DR5) to estimate the Fisher information in the galaxy angular power spectrum with the help of the Rimes-Hamilton technique. It is found that the amount of Fisher information contained in the galaxy angular power spectrum is saturated at lensing multipole scale 300 ⩽ l⩽ 2000 in the redshift range 0.1 ≤ photo- z < 0.5. At l = 2000, the observed information is 2 orders of magnitude lower than the case of Gaussian fluctuations. This supports observationally that the translinear regime of the density power spectrum contains little independent information about the initial cosmological conditions, which is consistent with the numerical trend shown by Rimes-Hamilton. Our results also suggest that the Gaussian-noise description may not be valid in weak-lensing measurements.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations41
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→