MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292935780 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201628636

<i>Planck</i>intermediate results

2016· article· en· W4292935780 on OpenAlexaff
N. Aghanim, M. I. R. Alves, D. Arzoumanian, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, S. Basak, K. Benabed, J.-P. Bernard, M. Bersanelli, P. Bielewicz, L. Bonavera, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, F. R. Bouchet, F. Boulanger, A. Bracco, M. Bucher, C. Burigana, E. Calabrese, J.-F. Cardoso, H. C. Chiang, L. P. L. Colombo, C. Combet, B. Comis, F. Couchot, A. Coulais, B. P. Crill, A. Curto, F. Cuttaia, R. J. Davis, P. de Bernardis, A. de Rosa, G. de Zotti, J. Delabrouille, J.‐M. Delouis, Eleonora Di Valentino, C. Dickinson, J. M. Diego, O. Doré, M. Douspis, A. Ducout, X. Dupac, S. Dusini, G. Efstathiou, F. Elsner, T. A. Enßlin, H. K. Eriksen, E. Falgarone, Y. Fantaye, K. Ferrière, F. Finelli⋆, M. Frailis, A. A. Fraisse, E. Franceschi, A. Frolov, S. Galeotta, S. Galli, K. Ganga, R. T. Génova-Santos, M. Gerbino, T. Ghosh, J. González-Nuevo, K. M. Górski, S. Gratton, A. Gregorio, A. Gruppuso, J. E. Gudmundsson, V. Guillet, F. K. Hansen, G. Hélou, S. Henrot–Versillé, D. Herranz, E. Hivon, Zhiqi Huang, T. R. Jaffe, T. R. Jaffe, W. C. Jones, E. Keihänen, Rijo Keskitalo, T. S. Kisner, N. Krachmalnicoff, M. Kunz, H. Kurki‐Suonio, G. Lagache, A. Lähteenmäki, J.-M. Lamarre, M. Langer, A. Lasenby, M. Lattanzi, M. Le Jeune, F. Levrier, M. Liguori, P. B. Lilje, M. López-Caniego, P. M. Lubin, J. F. Macías–Pérez, A. Loureiro, D. Maino, N. Mandolesi, A. Mangilli, M. Maris, P. G. Martin, E. Martínez-González, S. Matarrese, N. Mauri, J. D. McEwen, A. Melchiorri, A. Mennella, M. Migliaccio, M.-A. Miville-Deschênes, D. Molinari, A. Moneti, L. Montier, G. Morgante, A. Moss, P. Naselsky, P. Natoli, J. Neveu, H. U. Nørgaard‐Nielsen, N. Oppermann, C. A. Oxborrow, L. Pagano, D. Paoletti, B. Partridge, O. Perdereau, L. Perotto, V. Pettorino, F. Piacentini, S. Plaszczynski, G. Polenta, J. P. Rachen, R. Rébolo, M. Reinecke, M. Remazeilles, A. Renzi, I. Ristorcelli, G. Rocha, M. Rossetti, G. Roudier, B. Ruiz-Granados, L. Salvati, M. Sandri, M. Savelainen, D. Scott, C. Sirignano, J. D. Soler, A.-S. Suur-Uski, J. A. Tauber, D. Tavagnacco, M. Tenti, L. Toffolatti, M. Tomasi, M. Tristram, T. Trombetti, J. Väliviita, F. Vansyngel, F. Van Tent, P. Vielva, F. Villa, B. D. Wandelt, I. K. Wehus, A. Zacchei, A. Zonca

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationChina Scholarship CouncilScience and Technology Facilities CouncilTekesCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesInstitut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des ParticulesMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino SuperiorEuropean CommissionPartnership for Advanced Computing in Europe AISBLMax-Planck-GesellschaftUK Space AgencyScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsPhysicsPlanckAstrophysicsCosmic microwave backgroundStokes parametersInterstellar mediumPolarization (electrochemistry)Computational physicsGalaxyScatteringOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using data from the Planck satellite, we study the statistical properties of interstellar dust polarization at high Galactic latitudes around the south pole (b < −60°). Our aim is to advance the understanding of the magnetized interstellar medium (ISM), and to provide a modelling framework of the polarized dust foreground for use in cosmic microwave background (CMB) component-separation procedures. We examine the Stokes I, Q, and U maps at 353 GHz, and particularly the statistical distribution of the polarization fraction (p) and angle (ψ), in order to characterize the ordered and turbulent components of the Galactic magnetic field (GMF) in the solar neighbourhood. The Q and U maps show patterns at large angular scales, which we relate to the mean orientation of the GMF towards Galactic coordinates (l0,b0) = (70° ± 5°,24° ± 5°). The histogram of the observed p values shows a wide dispersion up to 25%. The histogram of ψ has a standard deviation of 12° about the regular pattern expected from the ordered GMF. We build a phenomenological model that connects the distributions of p and ψ to a statistical description of the turbulent component of the GMF, assuming a uniform effective polarization fraction (p0) of dust emission. To compute the Stokes parameters, we approximate the integration along the line of sight (LOS) as a sum over a set of N independent polarization layers, in each of which the turbulent component of the GMF is obtained from Gaussian realizations of a power-law power spectrum. We are able to reproduce the observed p and ψ distributions using a p0 value of 26%, a ratio of 0.9 between the strengths of the turbulent and mean components of the GMF, and a small value of N. The mean value of p (inferred from the fit of the large-scale patterns in the Stokes maps) is 12 ± 1%. We relate the polarization layers to the density structure and to the correlation length of the GMF along the LOS. We emphasize the simplicity of our model (involving only a few parameters), which can be easily computed on the celestial sphere to produce simulated maps of dust polarization. Our work is an important step towards a model that can be used to assess the accuracy of component-separation methods in present and future CMB experiments designed to search the B mode CMB polarization from primordial gravity waves.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0940.078

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations65
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207