<i>Planck</i> 2018 results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the original version, the bounds given in Eqs. (87a) and (87b) on the contribution to the early-time optical depth, (15,30), contained a numerical error in deriving the 95th percentile from the Monte Carlo samples. The corrected 95% upper bounds are: τ(15,30) < 0:018 (lowE, flat τ(15, 30), FlexKnot), (1) τ(15, 30) < 0:023 (lowE, flat knot, FlexKnot): (2) These bounds are a factor of 3 larger than the originally reported results. Consequently, the new bounds do not significantly improve upon previous results from Planck data presented in Millea & Bouchet (2018) as was stated, but are instead comparable. Equations (1) and (2) give results that are now similar to those of Heinrich & Hu (2021), who used the same Planck 2018 data to derive a 95% upper bound of 0.020 using the principal component analysis (PCA) model and uniform priors on the PCA mode amplitudes.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.063 | 0.050 |
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".