Next Generation Virgo Cluster Survey. XXI. The Weak Lensing Masses of the CFHTLS and NGVS RedGOLD Galaxy Clusters and Calibration of the Optical Richness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We measured stacked weak lensing cluster masses for a sample of 1323 galaxy clusters detected by the RedGOLD algorithm in the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey W1 and the Next Generation Virgo Cluster Survey at , in the optical richness range . This is the most comprehensive lensing study of a complete and pure optical cluster catalog in this redshift range. We test different mass models, and our final model includes a basic halo model with a Navarro Frenk and White profile, as well as correction terms that take into account cluster miscentering, non-weak shear, the two-halo term, the contribution of the Brightest Cluster Galaxy, and an a posteriori correction for the intrinsic scatter in the mass–richness relation. With this model, we obtain a mass–richness relation of (statistical uncertainties). This result is consistent with other published lensing mass–richness relations. We give the coefficients of the scaling relations between the lensing mass and X-ray mass proxies, L X and T X, and compare them with previous results. When compared to X-ray masses and mass proxies, our results are in agreement with most previous results and simulations, and consistent with the expected deviations from self-similarity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".