MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2275004005 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/2/160

Cosmic Voids in the SDSS DR12 BOSS Galaxy Sample: the Alcock–Paczyński test

2017· article· en· W2275004005 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryYork UniversityOffice of ScienceJohns Hopkins UniversityCarnegie Mellon UniversityCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityHarvard UniversityOhio State UniversityNational Science FoundationUniversity of WashingtonAlfred P. Sloan FoundationNew Mexico State UniversityUniversity of PortsmouthVanderbilt UniversityYale UniversityPrinceton UniversityBrookhaven National LaboratoryU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsBossRedshiftGalaxyVoid (composites)BaryonCOSMIC cancer databaseMeasure (data warehouse)Line-of-sightPhotometric redshift

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We apply the Alcock–Paczyński (AP) test to stacked voids identified using the final data release (DR12) of the Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey (BOSS). We also use 1000 mock galaxy catalogs that match the geometry, density, and clustering properties of the BOSS sample in order to characterize the statistical uncertainties of our measurements and take into account systematic errors such as redshift space distortions. For both BOSS data and mock catalogs, we use the ZOBOV algorithm to identify voids, we stack together all voids with effective radii of in the redshift range of 0.43–0.7, and we accurately measure the shape of the stacked voids. Our tests with the mock catalogs show that we measure the stacked void ellipticity with a statistical precision of 2.6%. The stacked voids in redshift space are slightly squashed along the line of sight, consistent with previous studies. We repeat this measurement of stacked void shape in the BOSS data, assuming several values of within the flat model, and we compare this to the mock catalogs in redshift space to perform the AP test. We obtain a constraint of at the 68% confidence level from the AP test. We discuss the sources of statistical and systematic noise that affect the constraining power of this method. In particular, we find that the measured ellipticity of stacked voids changes more weakly with cosmology than the standard AP prediction, leading to significantly weaker constraints. We discuss how constraints will improve in future surveys with larger volumes and densities.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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

Citations61
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→