Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Strong gravitational lenses provide unique laboratories for cosmological and astrophysical investigations, but they must first be discovered – a task that can be met with significant contamination by other astrophysical objects and asterisms. Here we review strong lens searches, covering various sources (quasars, galaxies, supernovae, FRBs, GRBs, and GWs), lenses (early- and late-type galaxies, groups, and clusters), datasets (imaging, spectra, and lightcurves), and wavelengths. We first present the physical characteristics of the lens and source populations, highlighting relevant details for constructing targeted searches. Search techniques are described based on the main lensing feature that is required for the technique to work, namely one of: (i) an associated magnification, (ii) multiple spatially-resolved images, (iii) multiple redshifts, or (iv) a non-zero time delay between images. To use the current lens samples for science, and for the design of future searches, we list several selection biases that exist due to these discovery techniques. We conclude by discussing the future of lens searches in upcoming surveys and the new population of lenses that will be discovered.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it