MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2899620370 · doi:10.3390/sym10110585

Exploring the Tension between Current Cosmic Microwave Background and Cosmic Shear Data

2018· article· en· W2899620370 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSymmetry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCosmic microwave backgroundPhysicsPlanckAstrophysicsCOSMIC cancer databaseCosmologyDark matterCosmic background radiationAmplitudeWeak gravitational lensingSpectral densitySouth Pole TelescopeMatter power spectrumAstronomyDark energyAnisotropyRedshiftOpticsStatisticsGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a snapshot of the formal S 8 ≡ σ 8 Ω m / 0.3 tension between Planck 2015 and the Kilo Degree Survey of450 deg 2 of imaging data (KiDS-450) or the Canada France Hawaii Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS). We find that the Cosmic Microwave Bckground (CMB) and cosmic shear datasets are in tension in the standard Λ Cold Dark Matter ( Λ CDM) model, and that adding massive neutrinos does not relieve the tension. If we include an additional scaling parameter on the CMB lensing amplitude A l e n s , we find that this can put in agreement the Planck 2015 with the cosmic shear data. A l e n s is a phenomenological parameter that is found to be more than 2 σ higher than the expected value in the Planck 2015 data, suggesting an higher amount of lensing in the power spectra, not supported by the trispectrum analysis.

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.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.198 · 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