MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2199629920 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2014-0339

Theoretical estimates of integrated Sachs–Wolfe effect detection through the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder’s Evolutionary Map of the Universe (ASKAP- EMU) survey, with confusion, position uncertainty, shot noise, and signal-to-noise ratio analysis

2015· article· en· W2199629920 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCosmic microwave backgroundDark energyRedshiftGalaxyCold dark matterRedshift surveyCMB cold spotCosmologyCosmic background radiationUniverse

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detection of the late-time integrated Sachs–Wolfe (ISW) effect is an active area of study related to large-scale structures (LSSs). The ISW effect can be studied by observing the non-zero cross-correlation between cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies with tracers of mass field, such as galaxy survey data. We study this effect by cross-correlating the CMB data and related cosmological parameters, as delineated by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), with the upcoming Evolutionary Map of the Universe (EMU) survey planned for the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder (ASKAP). ASKAP-EMU will conduct a deep radio continuum survey with a root-mean-square (rms) flux of 10 μJy per beam (1 Jy = 10–26 Wm–2Hz–1). The survey will cover the entire southern sky, extending to +30° declination. To infer the expected redshift distribution (dN/dz) and differential source count (S) that can be extracted from the galaxies surveyed via EMU, we use data from the S-cubed simulation of extragalactic radio continuum sources (S3-SEX) for the Square Kilometre Array Design Studies (SKADS). We also calculate various parameters including galaxy survey shot noise, root mean square confusion uncertainty, and position uncertainty for the survey, which can help in understanding the accuracy of the survey results and in performing the data analysis. We also discuss signal-to-noise ratios over a range of maximum redshifts and maximum multipole values with some discussion on constraints over dark energy density parameter (ΩΛ) and baryonic matter density parameter (Ωb).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicRadio Astronomy Observations and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207