MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3125191693

CONTRIBUTION OF LENSED SCUBA GALAXIES TO THE COSMIC INFRARED BACKGROUND

2016· article· en· W3125191693 on OpenAlexaff
M. Zemcov, A. W. Blain, Mark Halpern, L. R. Levenson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsGalaxyAstrophysicsGravitational lensLuminous infrared galaxyCosmic infrared backgroundLuminosity functionLuminosityLine-of-sightFlux (metallurgy)AstronomyInfraredCOSMIC cancer databaseFar infraredRedshiftOpticsCosmic microwave background
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The surface density of submillimeter (sub-mm) galaxies as a function of flux, usually termed the source number counts, constrains models of the evolution of the density and luminosity of starburst galaxies. At the faint end of the distribution, direct detection and counting of galaxies are not possible. However, gravitational lensing by clusters of galaxies allows detection of sources which would otherwise be too dim to study. We have used the largest catalog of sub-mm-selected sources along the line of sight to galaxy clusters to estimate the faint end of the 850 micron number counts; integrating to S = 0.10 mJy the equivalent flux density at 850 microns is v I_{v} = 0.24 +/- 0.03 nW/m^2/sr. This provides a lower limit to the extragalactic far-infrared background and is consistent with direct estimates of the full intensity from the FIRAS. The results presented here can help to guide strategies for upcoming surveys carried out with single dish sub-mm instruments.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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