MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406975556 · doi:10.1093/mnras/staf975

<scp>Hi</scp> intensity mapping with the MIGHTEE Survey: first results of the <scp>Hi</scp> power spectrum

2025· preprint· en· W4406975556 on OpenAlexaff
Aishrila Mazumder, Laura Wolz, Zhaoting Chen, Sourabh Paul, Mário G. Santos, M. J. Jarvis, Junaid Townsend, Srikrishna Sekhar, Russ Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMachine Fault Diagnosis Techniques
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilCenter for High Performance ComputingCape Peninsula University of TechnologyUniversity of the Western CapeUniversity of PretoriaNational Science Foundation, United Arab EmiratesUniversity of Cape TownUK Research and InnovationNational Research FoundationUniversiteit Stellenbosch
KeywordsIntensity (physics)Intensity mappingPower (physics)Spectrum (functional analysis)Spectral densityStatisticsPhysicsMathematicsOpticsAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We present the first results of the H i intensity mapping power spectrum analysis with the MeerKAT International GigaHertz Tiered Extragalactic Exploration (MIGHTEE) survey. We use data covering $\sim$ 4 square degrees in the COSMOS field using a frequency range of 962.5–1008.42 MHz, equivalent to H i emission in $0.4< z< 0.48$. The data consist of 15 pointings with a total of 94.2 h on-source. We verify the suitability of the MIGHTEE data for H i intensity mapping by testing for residual systematics across frequency, baselines, and pointings. We also vary the window used for H i signal measurements and find no significant improvement using stringent Fourier mode cuts. We compute the H i power spectrum at scales $0.5\, \textrm {Mpc}^{-1} \lesssim k \lesssim 10\, \textrm {Mpc}^{-1}$ in autocorrelation as well as cross-correlation between observational scans using power spectrum domain averaging for pointings. We report consistent upper limits of 29.8 mK$^{2}$ Mpc${^3}$ from the 2$\sigma$ cross-correlation measurements and 25.82 mK$^{2}$ Mpc${^3}$ from autocorrelation at $k\sim$2 Mpc$^{-1}$.The low signal-to-noise ratio in this data potentially limits our ability to identify residual systematics, which will be addressed in the future by incorporating more data in the analysis.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicMachine Fault Diagnosis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207