MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165817366 · doi:10.1017/s1743921305002164

The SuperMACHO Microlensing Survey

2004· article· en· W2165817366 on OpenAlexafffund
A. C. Becker, A. Rest, C. W. Stubbs, G. Miknaitis, Antonino Miceli, R. Covarrubias, Suzanne L. Hawley, C. Aguilera, R. C. Smith, N. B. Suntzeff, Knut Olsen, J. L. Prieto, R. Hiriart, Arti Garg, D. L. Welch, K. H. Cook, S. Nikolaev, A. Clocchiatti, D. Minniti, S. Keller, B. Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Astronomical Union · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryNational Nuclear Security AdministrationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science FoundationJames S. McDonnell FoundationU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsGravitational microlensingLarge Magellanic CloudPhysicsHaloAstrophysicsAstronomyLight curvePopulationGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the first results from our next-generation microlensing survey, the SuperMACHO project. We are using the CTIO 4m Blanco telescope and the MOSAIC imager to carry out a search for microlensing toward the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC). We plan to ascertain the nature of the population responsible for the excess microlensing rate seen by the MACHO project. Our observing strategy is optimized to measure the differential microlensing rate across the face of the LMC. We find this derivative to be relatively insensitive to the details of the LMC's internal structure but a strong discriminant between Galactic halo and LMC self lensing. In December 2003 we completed our third year of survey operations. 2003 also marked the first year of real-time microlensing alerts and photometric and spectroscopic followup. We have extracted several dozen microlensing candidates, and we present some preliminary light curves and related information. Similar to the MACHO project, we find SNe behind the LMC to be a significant contaminant - this background has not been completely removed from our current single-color candidate sample. Our follow-up strategy is optimized to discriminate between SNe and true microlensing.To search for other articles by the author(s) go to: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html

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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

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 head0.216
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Astronomical UnionSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207