CCCP and MENeaCS: (updated) weak-lensing masses for 100 galaxy clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Large area surveys continue to increase the samples of galaxy clusters that can be used to constrain cosmological parameters, provided that the masses of the clusters are measured robustly. To improve the calibration of cluster masses using weak gravitational lensing we present new results for 48 clusters at 0.05 < z < 0.15, observed as part of the Multi Epoch Nearby Cluster Survey, and re-evaluate the mass estimates for 52 clusters from the Canadian Cluster Comparison Project. Updated high-fidelity photometric redshift catalogues of reference deep fields are used in combination with advances in shape measurements and state-of-the-art cluster simulations, yielding an average systematic uncertainty in the lensing signal below 5 per cent, similar to the statistical uncertainty for our cluster sample. We derive a scaling relation with Planck measurements for the full sample and find a bias in the Planck masses of 1 − b = 0.84 ± 0.04 (stat) ±0.05 (syst). We find no statistically significant trend of the mass bias with redshift or cluster mass, but find that different selections could change the bias by up to 0.07. We find a gas fraction of 0.139 ± 0.014 (stat) for eight relaxed clusters in our sample, which can also be used to infer cosmological parameters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".