MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085195601 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/2/518

REAL-TIME ANALYSIS AND SELECTION BIASES IN THE SUPERNOVA LEGACY SURVEY

2010· article· en· W2085195601 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsDominion Astrophysical ObservatoryCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsDefence Research and Development Canada
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitut national des sciences de l'UniversCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueRoyal Society
KeywordsSupernovaCosmologyRedshiftHomogeneousObservational cosmologyMonte Carlo methodSampling (signal processing)Magnitude (astronomy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Supernova Legacy Survey (SNLS) has produced a high-quality, homogeneous sample of Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) out to redshifts greater than z = 1. In its first four years of full operation (to 2007 June), the SNLS discovered more than 3000 transient candidates, 373 of which have been spectroscopically confirmed as SNe Ia. Use of these SNe Ia in precision cosmology critically depends on an analysis of the observational biases incurred in the SNLS survey due to the incomplete sampling of the underlying SN Ia population. This paper describes our real-time supernova detection and analysis procedures, and uses detailed Monte Carlo simulations to examine the effects of Malmquist bias and spectroscopic sampling. Such sampling effects are found to become apparent at z 0.6, with a significant shift in the average magnitude of the spectroscopically confirmed SN Ia sample toward brighter values for z 0.75. We describe our approach to correct for these selection biases in our three-year SNLS cosmological analysis (SNLS3) and present a breakdown of the systematic uncertainties involved.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.239 · 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.

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

Citations57
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207