MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An 850-μm SCUBA map of the Groth Strip and reliable source extraction

2005· article· en· W2104404862 on OpenAlexafffund
K. E. K. Coppin, M. Halpern, D. Scott, C. Borys, S. C. Chapman

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsPhysicsPhotometry (optics)Flux (metallurgy)AstrophysicsNoise (video)Spurious relationshipStatisticsStarsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an 850-μm map and list of candidate sources in a subarea of the Groth Strip observed using the Submillimetre Common-User Bolometer Array (SCUBA). The map consists of a long strip of adjoining jiggle-maps covering the southwestern 70 arcmin2 of the original Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 Groth Strip to an average 1σ rms noise level of ≃3.5 mJy. We initially detect seven candidate sources with signal-to-noise ratios between 3.0 and 3.5σ and four candidate sources with signal-to-noise ratio ≥3.5. Simulations suggest that on average in a map this size one expects 1.6 false positive sources ≥3.5σ and 4.5 between 3 and 3.5σ. Flux boosting in maps is a well-known effect and we have developed a simple Bayesian prescription for estimating the unboosted flux distribution and used this method to determine the best flux estimates of our sources. This method is easily adapted for any other modest signal-to-noise survey in which there is prior knowledge of the source counts. We performed follow-up photometry in an attempt to confirm or reject five of our source candidates. We failed to significantly redetect three of the five sources in the noisiest regions of the map, suggesting that they are either spurious or have true fluxes close to the noise level. However, we did confirm the reality of two of the SCUBA sources, although at lower flux levels than suggested in the map. Not surprisingly, we find that the photometry Results are consistent with and confirm the de-boosted map fluxes. Our final candidate source list contains three sources, including the two confirmed detections and one further candidate source with signal-to-noise ratio >3.5σ which has a reasonable chance of being real. We performed correlations and found evidence of positive flux at the positions of XMM–Newton X-ray sources. The 95 per cent lower limit for the average flux density of these X-ray sources is 0.8 mJy.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

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 head0.210
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 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

Citations94
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207