MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2887074614 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833654

The XXL Survey

2018· article· en· W2887074614 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersInstitut national des sciences de l'UniversScience and Technology Facilities CouncilCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationCalifornia Institute of TechnologyJet Propulsion Laboratory
KeywordsRedshiftCluster (spacecraft)GalaxyGalaxy clusterLuminosity functionObservatoryPoint sourceBrightest cluster galaxyLow Mass

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context. The XMM-XXL survey has used observations from the XMM-Newton observatory to detect clusters of galaxies over a wide range in mass and redshift. The moderate PSF (FWHM ~ 6″ on-axis) of XMM-Newton means that point sources within or projected onto a cluster may not be separated from the cluster emission, leading to enhanced luminosities and affecting the selection function of the cluster survey. Aims. We present the results of short Chandra observations of 21 galaxy clusters and cluster candidates at redshifts z > 1 detected in the XMM-XXL survey in X-rays or selected in the optical and infra-red. Methods. With the superior angular resolution of Chandra, we investigate whether there are any point sources within the cluster region that were not detected by the XMM-XXL analysis pipeline, and whether any point sources were misclassified as distant clusters. Results. Of the 14 X-ray selected clusters, 9 are free from significant point source contamination, either having no previously unresolved sources detected by Chandra or with less than about 10% of the reported XXL cluster flux being resolved into point sources. Of the other five sources, one is significantly contaminated by previously unresolved AGN, and four appear to be AGN misclassified as clusters. All but one of these cases are in the subset of less secure X-ray selected cluster detections and the false positive rate is consistent with that expected from the XXL selection function modelling. We also considered a further seven optically selected cluster candidates associated with faint XXL sources that were not classed as clusters. Of these, three were shown to be AGN by Chandra, one is a cluster whose XXL survey flux was highly contaminated by unresolved AGN, while three appear to be uncontaminated clusters. By decontaminating and vetting these distant clusters, we provide a pure sample of clusters at redshift z > 1 for deeper follow-up observations, and demonstrate the utility of using Chandra snapshots to test for AGN in surveys with high sensitivity but poor angular resolution.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.036

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and Astrophysics→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→