MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415689215 · doi:10.1017/s1743921323001655

On the observational challenges to estimating the masses of dwarf galaxies

2023· article· en· W4415689215 on OpenAlexaff
Alan W. McConnachie

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Astronomical Union · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyMilky WayContext (archaeology)Dwarf galaxyGalaxyPresentation (obstetrics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This presentation is an attempt to lay out, in the context of observational studies of the masses of Milky Way dwarf galaxies, what it is I think we want to do, why we want to do it, and how we go about doing it. They are my own personal opinions, and are presented here in the hope that they will stimulate others to step back and consider what are the most important scientific investigations that we should be doing, given the plethora of facilities and data available that are now available to us.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.174
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.174
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Astronomical UnionSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207