MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145185355 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/1/15

A MAP OF DUST REDDENING TO 4.5 kpc FROM Pan-STARRS1

2014· article· en· W2145185355 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPlanetary Science DivisionScience Mission DirectorateSmithsonian Astrophysical ObservatoryMax-Planck-Institut für AstronomieEötvös Loránd TudományegyetemNational Central UniversityCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftSpace Telescope Science InstituteQueen's UniversityJohns Hopkins UniversityFAS Division of Science, Harvard UniversityQueen's University BelfastNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationHarvard UniversityDurham UniversitySmithsonian InstitutionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSkyDust laneCosmic dustExtinction (optical mineralogy)Line (geometry)Milky Way

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a map of the dust reddening to 4.5 kpc derived from Pan-STARRS1 stellar photometry. The map covers almost the entire sky north of declination -30° at a resolution of 7'-14', and is based on the estimated distances and reddenings to more than 500 million stars. The technique is designed to map dust in the Galactic plane, where many other techniques are stymied by the presence of multiple dust clouds at different distances along each line of sight. This reddening-based dust map agrees closely with the Schlegel et al. (SFD) far-infrared emission-based dust map away from the Galactic plane, and the most prominent differences between the two maps stem from known limitations of SFD in the plane. We also compare the map with Planck, finding likewise good agreement in general at high latitudes. The use of optical data from Pan-STARRS1 yields reddening uncertainty as low as 25 mmag E(B - V).

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 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

Citations117
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207