MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802980895

Gaussianity of the QMASK Map

2001· article· en· W2802980895 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
S. F. Shandarin, Hume A. Feldman, Yongzhong Xu, Max Tegmark

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical and numerical algorithms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCosmic microwave backgroundMonte Carlo methodGaussianMinkowski spacePhysicsSkyNon-GaussianityStatistical physicsNoise (video)Scale (ratio)Gaussian noiseSpectral densityAnisotropyMathematicsStatisticsAstrophysicsAlgorithmGeometryOpticsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We test degree-scale cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy for Gaussianity by studying the \\qmask map that was obtained from combining the QMAP and Saskatoon data. We compute seven morphological functions $M_i(\\dt)$, $i=1,...,7$: six \\mf and the number of regions $N_c$ at a hundred $\\dt$ levels. We also introduce a new parameterization of the morphological functions $M_i(A)$ in terms of the total area $A$ of the excursion set. We show that the latter considerably decorrelates the morphological statistics. We compare these results with those from 1000 Gaussian Monte Carlo maps with the same power spectrum, and conclude that the \\qmask map is neither a very typical nor a very exceptional realization of a Gaussian field. Roughly 20% of the 1000 Gaussian Monte Carlo maps differ more than the \\qmask map from the mean morphological parameters of the Gaussian fields.

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)0.006
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.096 · 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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicStatistical and numerical algorithmsFrench-language works237,207