MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2202894114 · doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/130

ON GALACTIC DENSITY MODELING IN THE PRESENCE OF DUST EXTINCTION

2016· article· en· W2202894114 on OpenAlexaff
Jo Bovy, Hans‐Walter Rix, Gregory Green, Edward F. Schlafly, Douglas P. Finkbeiner

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilky WayExtinction (optical mineralogy)PhysicsStarsAstrophysicsSkyGalaxyAstronomyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Inferences about the spatial density or phase-space structure of stellar populations in the Milky Way require a precise determination of the effective survey volume. The volume observed by surveys such as Gaia or near-infrared spectroscopic surveys, which have good coverage of the Galactic midplane region, is highly complex because of the abundant small-scale structure in the three-dimensional interstellar dust extinction. We introduce a novel framework for analyzing the importance of small-scale structure in the extinction. This formalism demonstrates that the spatially complex effect of extinction on the selection function of a pencil-beam or contiguous sky survey is equivalent to a low-pass filtering of the extinction-affected selection function with the smooth density field. We find that the angular resolution of current 3D extinction maps is sufficient for analyzing Gaia sub-samples of millions of stars. However, the current distance resolution is inadequate and needs to be improved by an order of magnitude, especially in the inner Galaxy. We also present a practical and efficient method for properly taking the effect of extinction into account in analyses of Galactic structure through an effective selection function. We illustrate its use with the selection function of red-clump stars in APOGEE using and comparing a variety of current 3D extinction maps.

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 score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.233
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 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

Citations266
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207