MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742990167 · doi:10.1093/pasj/psy030

The Subaru FMOS galaxy redshift survey (FastSound). V. Intrinsic alignments of emission-line galaxies at <i>z</i> ∼ 1.4

2018· article· en· W2742990167 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePublications of the Astronomical Society of Japan · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceScience and Technology Facilities CouncilMinistry of Science and Technology, Israel
KeywordsGalaxyRedshiftSubaru TelescopeAmplitudeWeak gravitational lensingCosmologyPhotometric redshiftRedshift survey

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Intrinsic alignments (IA), the coherent alignment of intrinsic galaxy orientations, can be a source of a systematic error of weak lensing surveys. The redshift evolution of IA also contains information about the physics of galaxy formation and evolution. This paper presents the first measurement of IA at high redshift, z ∼ 1.4, using the spectroscopic catalog of blue star-forming galaxies of the FastSound redshift survey, with the galaxy shape information from the Canada–Hawaii–France telescope lensing survey. The IA signal is consistent with zero with power-law amplitudes fitted to the projected correlation functions for density–shape and shape–shape correlation components, Aδ+ = −0.0071 ± 0.1340 and A++ = −0.0505 ± 0.0848, respectively. These results are consistent with those obtained from blue galaxies at lower redshifts (e.g., $A\,_{\delta +}=0.0035_{-0.0389}^{+0.0387}$ and $A_{++}=0.0045_{-0.0168}^{+0.0166}$ at z = 0.51 from the WiggleZ survey). The upper limit of the constrained IA amplitude corresponds to a few percent contamination to the weak-lensing shear power spectrum, resulting in systematic uncertainties on the cosmological parameter estimations by −0.052 &amp;lt; Δσ8 &amp;lt; 0.039 and −0.039 &amp;lt; ΔΩm &amp;lt; 0.030.

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)0.001
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublications of the Astronomical Society of JapanSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207