The association between gas and galaxies – I. CFHT spectroscopy and pair analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate the relative distribution of the gaseous contents of the Universe (as traced by a sample of Lyα absorbers), and the luminous baryonic matter (as traced by a redshift survey of galaxies in the same volume searched for Lyα absorbers), along 16 lines of sight (LOS) between redshifts 0 and 1. Our galaxy redshift survey was made with the multi-object spectrograph on the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope and, when combined with galaxies from the literature in the same LOS, gives us a galaxy sample of 636 objects. By combining this with an absorption-line sample of 406 absorbing systems drawn from published works, we are able to study the relationship between gas and galaxies over the latter half of the age of the Universe. A correlation between absorbers and galaxies is detected out to separation of 1.5 Mpc. This correlation is weaker than the galaxy–galaxy correlation. There is also some evidence that the absorbing systems seen in C iv are more closely related to galaxies, although this correlation could be with column density rather than metallicity. The above results are all consistent with the absorbing gas and the galaxies coexisting in dark matter filaments and knots as predicted by current models where the column density of the absorbing gas is correlated with the underlying matter density.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".