[no title]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have carried out follow-up spectroscopy on three overdense regions of g- and r-dropout galaxies in the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey Deep Fields, finding two new protoclusters at z = 4.898 and 3.721 and a possible protocluster at z = 3.834. The z = 3.721 protocluster overlaps with a previously identified protocluster at z = 3.675. The redshift separation between these two protoclusters is Δz = 0.05, which is slightly larger than the size of typical protoclusters. Therefore, if they are not the progenitors of a >1015 M halo, they would grow into closely located independent halos like a supercluster. The other protocluster at z = 4.898 is also surrounded by smaller galaxy groups. These systems including protoclusters and neighboring groups are regarded as the early phase of superclusters. We quantify the spatial distribution of member galaxies of the protoclusters at z = 3.675 and 3.721 by fitting triaxial ellipsoids, finding a tentative difference: one has a pancake-like shape, while the other is filamentary. This could indicate that these two protoclusters are in different stages of formation. We investigate the relation between redshift and the velocity dispersion of protoclusters, including other protoclusters from the literature, in order to compare their dynamical states. Although there is no significant systematic trend in the velocity dispersions of protoclusters with redshift, the distribution is skewed to higher velocity dispersion over the redshift range of z = 2-6. This could be interpreted as two phases of cluster formation, one dominated by the steady accretion of galaxies and the other by the merging between group-size halos, perhaps depending on the surrounding large-scale environments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.008 |
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".