MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145761433 · doi:10.1086/375509

A Fast Gridded Method for the Estimation of the Power Spectrum of the Cosmic Microwave Background from Interferometer Data with Application to the Cosmic Background Imager

2003· article· en· W2145761433 on OpenAlexaff
S. T. Myers, Carlo Contaldi, J. Richard Bond, Ue‐Li Pen, D. Pogosyan, S. Prunet, Jonathan Sievers, Brian Mason, T. J. Pearson, A. C. S. Readhead, M. C. Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCosmic microwave backgroundPhysicsInterferometryEstimatorSpectral densityCOSMIC cancer databaseAperture (computer memory)Noise (video)OpticsAstrophysicsComputer scienceAcousticsAnisotropyStatisticsMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe an algorithm for the extraction of the angular power spectrum of an intensity field, such as the cosmic microwave background (CMB), from interferometer data. This newmethod, based on the gridding of interferometer visibilities in the aperture plane followed by a maximum likelihood solution for band powers, is much faster than direct likelihood analysis of the visibilities and deals with foreground radio sources, multiple pointings, and differencing. The gridded aperture-plane estimators are also used to construct Wiener-filtered images using the signal and noise covariance matrices used in the likelihood analysis. Results are shown for simulated data. The method has been used to determine the power spectrum of the CMB from observations with the Cosmic Background Imager, and the results are given in companion papers. Subject headings: cosmic microwave background — methods: data analysis 1.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations84
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207