MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2581675082 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa5b84

A Principal Component Analysis of the Diffuse Interstellar Bands

2017· article· en· W2581675082 on OpenAlexaff
T. Ensor, J. Cami, N. H. Bhatt, Andrea Soddu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrincipal component analysisComponent (thermodynamics)Interstellar mediumPhysicsAstrobiologyAstronomyAstrophysicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present a principal component (PC) analysis of 23 line-of-sight parameters (including the strengths of 16 diffuse interstellar bands, DIBs) for a well-chosen sample of single-cloud sightlines representing a broad range of environmental conditions. Our analysis indicates that the majority (∼93%) of the variations in the measurements can be captured by only four parameters The main driver (i.e., the first PC) is the amount of DIB-producing material in the line of sight, a quantity that is extremely well traced by the equivalent width of the λ5797 DIB. The second PC is the amount of UV radiation, which correlates well with the λ5797/λ5780 DIB strength ratio. The remaining two PCs are more difficult to interpret, but are likely related to the properties of dust in the line of sight (e.g., the gas-to-dust ratio). With our PCA results, the DIBs can then be used to estimate these line-of-sight parameters.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations36
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207