MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4290889273 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202243950

<i>Euclid</i> preparation

2022· article· en· W4290889273 on OpenAlexaff
S. E. van Mierlo, K. I. Caputi, M. L. N. Ashby, Hakim Atek, M. Bolzonella, R. A. A. Bowler, Gabriel Brammer, Christopher J. Conselice, Jean-Gabriel Cuby, Pratika Dayal, A. Díaz‐Sánchez, Steven L. Finkelstein, Henk Hoekstra, A. Humphrey, O. Ilbert, H. J. McCracken, B. Milvang‐Jensen, Pascal A. Oesch, R. Pelló, G. Rodighiero, M. Schirmer, Sune Toft, John R. Weaver, Stephen M. Wilkins, Chris J. Willott, G. Zamorani, A. Amara, N. Auricchio, Marco Baldi, R. Bender, C. Bodendorf, D. Bonino, E. Branchini, M. Brescia, J. Brinchmann, S. Camera, V. Capobianco, C. Carbone, J. Carretero, M. Castellano, S. Cavuoti, A. Cimatti, R. Clédassou, G. Congedo, L. Conversi, Y. Copin, L. Corcione, F. Courbin, A. Da Silva, H. Degaudenzi, M. Douspis, F. Dubath, X. Dupac, S. Dusini, S. Farrens, S. Ferriol, M. Frailis, E. Franceschi, P. Franzetti, M. Fumana, S. Galeotta, B. Garilli, W. Gillard, B. Gillis, C. Giocoli, A. Grazian, F. Grupp, S. V. H. Haugan, W. A. Holmes, F. Hormuth, A. Hornstrup, K. Jahnkę, M Kümmel, A. Kiessling, M. Kilbinger, T. Kitching, R. Kohley, M. Kunz, H. Kurki‐Suonio, R. Laureijs, S. Ligori, P. B. Lilje, I. Lloro, E. Maiorano, O. Mansutti, O. Marggraf, K. Markovič, F. Marulli, R. Massey, S. Maurogordato, E. Medinaceli, M. Meneghetti, E. Merlin, G. Meylan, M. Moresco, L. Moscardini, E. Munari, S.-M Niemi, S. Paltani, F. Pasian, K. Pedersen, V. Pettorino, S. Pires, M. Poncet, L. Popa, L. Pozzetti, F. Raison, A. Renzi, Jason Rhodes, G. Riccio, E. Romelli, E. Rossetti, R. P. Saglia, D. Sapone, B. Sartoris, P. C. Schneider, A. Secroun, C. Sirignano, G. Sirri, L. Stančo, Jean‐Luc Starck, C. Surace, P. Tallada-Crespí, A. N. Taylor, I. Tereno, R. Toledo-Moreo, F. Torradeflot, I. Tutusaus, E. A. Valentijn, L. Valenziano, T. Vassallo, Yun Wang, A. Zacchei, J. Zoubian, S. Andreon, S. Bardelli, A. Boucaud, J. Graciá‐Carpio, N. Mauri, S Mei, F. Sureau, E. Zucca, C. Baccigalupi, A. Balaguera-Antolínez, A. Biviano, Alain Blanchard, S. Borgani, E. Bozzo, C. Burigana, R. Cabanac, F. Calura, A. Cappi, C. S. Carvalho, Santiago Casas, G. Castignani, C Colodro-Conde, Asantha Cooray, J. Coupon, H. M. Courtois, M. Crocce, O. Cucciati, S. Davini, H. Dole, J. A. Escartín, S. Escoffier, Maximilian Fabricius, M. Farina, K. Ganga, J. García-Bellido, Koshy George, F. Giacomini, G. Gozaliasl, Stephen Gwyn, I. Hook, V. Kansal, A. Kashlinsky, E. Keihänen, V. Lindholm, M. Martinelli, N. Martinet, M. Maturi, R. B. Metcalf, P Monaco, G. Morgante, Achille Nucita, L. Patrizii, Austin Peel, Jennifer E. Pollack, V. Popa, C. Porciani, D. Potter, P Reimberg, Ariel G. Sánchez, V Scottez, E. Sefusatti, Joachim Stadel, Romain Teyssier, J. Väliviita, Matteo Viel

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
FundersStaatssekretariat für Bildung, Forschung und InnovationFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaScience and Technology Facilities CouncilJet Propulsion LaboratoryNational Astronomical Observatory of JapanNorsk RomsenterAgenția Spațială RomânăEuropean Space AgencyAgenzia Spaziale ItalianaSpace Telescope Science InstituteNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekRijksuniversiteit GroningenCalifornia Institute of TechnologyEuropean CommissionNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsPhotometry (optics)GalaxyRedshiftAstronomyStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context. The Euclid mission is expected to discover thousands of z > 6 galaxies in three deep fields, which together will cover a ∼50 deg2 area. However, the limited number of Euclid bands (four) and the low availability of ancillary data could make the identification of z > 6 galaxies challenging. Aims. In this work we assess the degree of contamination by intermediate-redshift galaxies (z = 1–5.8) expected for z > 6 galaxies within the Euclid Deep Survey. Methods. This study is based on ∼176 000 real galaxies at z = 1–8 in a ∼0.7 deg2 area selected from the UltraVISTA ultra-deep survey and ∼96 000 mock galaxies with 25.3 ≤ H < 27.0, which altogether cover the range of magnitudes to be probed in the Euclid Deep Survey. We simulate Euclid and ancillary photometry from fiducial 28-band photometry and fit spectral energy distributions to various combinations of these simulated data. Results. We demonstrate that identifying z > 6 galaxies with Euclid data alone will be very effective, with a z > 6 recovery of 91% (88%) for bright (faint) galaxies. For the UltraVISTA-like bright sample, the percentage of z = 1–5.8 contaminants amongst apparent z > 6 galaxies as observed with Euclid alone is 18%, which is reduced to 4% (13%) by including ultra-deep Rubin (Spitzer) photometry. Conversely, for the faint mock sample, the contamination fraction with Euclid alone is considerably higher at 39%, and minimised to 7% when including ultra-deep Rubin data. For UltraVISTA-like bright galaxies, we find that Euclid (IE − YE) > 2.8 and (YE − JE) < 1.4 colour criteria can separate contaminants from true z > 6 galaxies, although these are applicable to only 54% of the contaminants as many have unconstrained (IE − YE) colours. In the best scenario, these cuts reduce the contamination fraction to 1% whilst preserving 81% of the fiducial z > 6 sample. For the faint mock sample, colour cuts are infeasible; we find instead that a 5σ detection threshold requirement in at least one of the Euclid near-infrared bands reduces the contamination fraction to 25%.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.205
Threshold uncertainty score0.686

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2050.127

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations18
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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