MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215202641 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stab3441

Bias in apparent dispersion measure due to de-magnification of plasma lensing on background radio sources

2021· preprint· en· W3215202641 on OpenAlexaff
Xinzhong Er, Jiangchuan Yu, Adam Rogers, Shihang Liu, Shude Mao

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadio Astronomy Observations and Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaFondation pour la Recherche sur la BiodiversiteNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMagnificationPhysicsElectron densityStrong gravitational lensingPlasmaAstrophysicsGravitational lensing formalismLine-of-sightGravitational lensWeak gravitational lensingOpticsGalaxyRedshift

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The effect of ionized gas on the propagation of radio signals is known as plasma lensing. Unlike gravitational lensing, plasma lensing causes both magnification and strong de-magnification effects to background sources. We study the cross-section of plasma lensing for two density profiles, the Gaussian and power-law models. In general, the cross-section increases with the density gradient. Radio sources can be used to measure the free electron density along the line of sight. However, plasma lensing de-magnification causes an underestimate of the electron density. Such a bias increases with the electron density, and can be up to $\sim 15{{\ {\rm per \ cent}}}$ in the high density region. There is a large probability that high density clumps will be missed due to this bias. The magnification of plasma lensing can also change the luminosity function of the background sources. The number density of sources on both the high- and low-luminosity ends can be overestimated due to this biasing effect.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicRadio Astronomy Observations and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207