MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effect of minihaloes on cosmic reionization

2006· article· en· W2127036548 on OpenAlexaff
B. Ciardi, Evan Scannapieco, F. Stoehr, Andrea Ferrara, Ilian T. Iliev, Paul R. Shapiro

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReionizationPhysicsAstrophysicsCOSMIC cancer databaseIonizationDark AgesPhotonCosmic rayGalaxyAstronomyRedshiftOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most debated issues in the theoretical modelling of cosmic reionization is the impact of small-mass gravitationally bound structures. We carry out the first numerical investigation of the role of such sterile ‘minihaloes’ (MHs), which serve as self-shielding screens of ionizing photons. MHs are too small to be properly resolved in current large-scale cosmological simulations, and thus we estimate their effects using a subgrid model, considering two cases that bracket their effect within this framework. In the ‘extreme-suppression’ case in which MH formation ceases once a region is partially ionized, their effect on cosmic reionization is modest, reducing the volume-averaged ionization fraction by an overall factor of less than15 per cent. In the other extreme, in which MH formation is never suppressed, they delay complete reionization as much as Δz~ 2, in rough agreement with the results from a previous semi-analytical study by the authors. Thus, depending on the details of the MH formation process, their effect on the overall progress of reionization can range from modest to significant, but the MH photon consumption is by itself insufficient to force an extended reionization epoch.

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)0.007
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations92
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207