MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2949783635 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/712/1/367

ESTIMATING SMALL ANGULAR SCALE COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND ANISOTROPY WITH HIGH-RESOLUTION<i>N</i>-BODY SIMULATIONS: WEAK LENSING

2010· article· en· W2949783635 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCosmology and Gravitation Theories
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCosmic microwave backgroundWeak gravitational lensingGravitational lensCosmic varianceStrong gravitational lensingGravitational lensing formalismSpectral densityCosmic background radiationCOSMIC cancer database

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We estimate the impact of weak lensing by strongly nonlinear cosmological structures on the cosmic microwave background. Accurate calculation of large ℓ multipoles requires N -body simulations and ray-tracing schemes with both high spatial and temporal resolution. To this end, we have developed a new code that combines a gravitational Adaptive Particle–Particle, Particle–Mesh solver with a weak-lensing evaluation routine. The lensing deviations are evaluated while structure evolves during the simulation so that all evolution steps—rather than just a few outputs—are used in the lensing computations. The new code also includes a ray-tracing procedure that avoids periodicity effects in a universe that is modeled as a three-dimensional torus in the standard way. Results from our new simulations are compared with previous ones based on Particle-Mesh simulations. We also systematically investigate the impact of box volume, resolution, and ray-tracing directions on the variance of the computed power spectra. We find that a box size of 512 h −1 Mpc is sufficient to provide a robust estimate of the weak-lensing angular power spectrum in the ℓ-interval (2000–7000). For a reaslistic cosmological model, the power [ℓ(ℓ + 1) C ℓ /2π] 1/2 takes on values of a few μK in this interval, which suggests that a future detection is feasible and may explain the excess power at high ℓ in the Berkeley–Illinois–Maryland Association and Cosmic Background Imager observations.

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)0.004
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations6
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicCosmology and Gravitation Theories→French-language works237,207→