MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2367994422 · doi:10.3847/0004-637x/832/1/26

A COMPARISON AND JOINT ANALYSIS OF SUNYAEV–ZEL’DOVICH EFFECT MEASUREMENTS FROM PLANCK AND BOLOCAM FOR A SET OF 47 MASSIVE GALAXY CLUSTERS

2016· article· en· W2367994422 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersCalifornia Institute of TechnologyGordon and Betty Moore FoundationNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsRedshiftScalingGalaxyLogarithmConsistency (knowledge bases)Galaxy clusterPlanckRADIUSScale (ratio)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We measure the Sunyaev–Zel’dovich (SZ) signal toward a set of 47 clusters with a median mass of 9.5 × 1014 M ☉ and a median redshift of 0.40 using data from Planck and the ground-based Bolocam receiver. When Planck XMM-like masses are used to set the scale radius , we find consistency between the integrated SZ signal, , derived from Bolocam and Planck based on generalized Navarro, Frenk, and White model fits using A10 shape parameters, with an average ratio of 1.069 ± 0.030 (allowing for the ≃5% Bolocam flux calibration uncertainty). We also perform a joint fit to the Bolocam and Planck data using a modified A10 model with the outer logarithmic slope β allowed to vary, finding β = 6.13 ± 0.16 ± 0.76 (measurement error followed by intrinsic scatter). In addition, we find that the value of β scales with mass and redshift according to . This mass scaling is in good agreement with recent simulations. We do not observe the strong trend of β with redshift seen in simulations, though we conclude that this is most likely due to our sample selection. Finally, we use Bolocam measurements of Y 500 to test the accuracy of the Planck completeness estimate. We find consistency, with the actual number of Planck detections falling approximately 1σ below the expectation from Bolocam. We translate this small difference into a constraint on the effective mass bias for the Planck cluster cosmology results, with .

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations39
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicCosmology and Gravitation TheoriesFrench-language works237,207