MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Power-spectrum normalization from the local abundance of rich clusters of galaxies

2001· article· en· W2149039653 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNormalization (sociology)Spectral densityCosmic microwave backgroundDark matterMatter power spectrumCosmologyGalaxyGalaxy clusterCluster (spacecraft)Planck

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number density of rich galaxy clusters still provides the most robust way of normalizing the power spectrum of dark matter perturbations on scales relevant to large-scale structure. We revisit this constraint in the light of several recent developments: (1) the availability of well-defined samples of local clusters with relatively accurate X-ray temperatures; (2) new theoretical mass functions for dark matter haloes, which provide a good fit to large numerical simulations; (3) more accurate mass-temperature relations from larger catalogues of hydrodynamical simulations; (4) the requirement to consider closed as well as open and flat cosmologies to obtain full multiparameter likelihood constraints for CMB and SNe studies. We present a new sample of clusters drawn from the literature and use this sample to obtain improved results on σ8, the normalization of the matter power spectrum on scales of 8 h−1 Mpc, as a function of the matter density and cosmological constant in a universe with general curvature. We discuss our differences with previous work, and the remaining major sources of uncertainty. Final results on the normalization, approximately independent of power spectrum shape, can be expressed as constraints on σ at an appropriate cluster normalization scale RCl. We provide fitting formulas for RCl and σ(RCl) for general cosmologies, as well as for σ8 as a function of cosmology and shape parameter Γ. For flat models we find approximately σ8≃(0.495−0.037+0.034)ΩM−0.60 for Γ = 0.23, where the error bar is dominated by uncertainty in the mass-temperature relation.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 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

Citations182
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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