MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2158999953 · doi:10.1126/science.1105598

Polarization Observations with the Cosmic Background Imager

2004· article· en· W2158999953 on OpenAlexaff
A. C. S. Readhead, S. T. Myers, T. J. Pearson, Jonathan Sievers, Brian Mason, Carlo Contaldi, J. Richard Bond, Ricardo Bustos, Pablo Altamirano, C. Achermann, L. Bronfman, J. E. Carlstrom, J. K. Cartwright, Simón Casassus, C. Dickinson, W. L. Holzapfel, J. M. Kovac, E. M. Leitch, J. May, S. Padin, D. Pogosyan, M.W. Pospieszalski, C. Pryke, R. Reeves, M. C. Shepherd, Sergio Torres

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCosmic microwave backgroundPolarization (electrochemistry)AstrophysicsSpectral densityCosmologyCOSMIC cancer databaseDark matterCosmic background radiationObservational cosmologyDark energyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polarization observations of the cosmic microwave background with the Cosmic Background Imager from September 2002 to May 2004 provide a significant detection of the E-mode polarization and reveal an angular power spectrum of polarized emission showing peaks and valleys that are shifted in phase by half a cycle relative to those of the total intensity spectrum. This key agreement between the phase of the observed polarization spectrum and that predicted on the basis of the total intensity spectrum provides support for the standard model of cosmology, in which dark matter and dark energy are the dominant constituents, the geometry is close to flat, and primordial density fluctuations are predominantly adiabatic with a matter power spectrum commensurate with inflationary cosmological models.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations218
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207