MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7095498800

Astronomy &Astrophysics CARS: the CFHTLS-Archive-Research Survey II. Weighing dark matter halos of Lyman-break galaxies at z = 3–5

2014· article· en· W7095498800 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedshiftHaloDark matterGalaxyLuminosityCorrelation function (quantum field theory)Redshift surveyGalaxy formation and evolutionCold dark matter
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims. We measure the clustering properties for a large samples of u- (z ∼ 3), g- (z ∼ 4), and r- (z ∼ 5) dropouts from the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey (CFHTLS) Deep fields. Methods. Photometric redshift distributions along with simulations allow us to de-project the angular correlation measurements and estimate physical quantities such as the correlation length, halo mass, galaxy bias, and halo occupation as a function of UV luminosity. Results. For the first time we detect a significant one-halo term in the correlation function at z ∼ 5. The comoving correlation lengths and halo masses of LBGs are found to decrease with decreasing rest-frame UV-luminosity. No significant redshift evolution is found in either quantity. The typical halo mass hosting an LBG is M> ∼ 1012 h−1 M and the halos are typically occupied by less than one galaxy. Clustering segregation with UV luminosity is clearly observed in the dropout samples, however redshift evolution cannot clearly be disentangled from systematic uncertainties introduced by the redshift distributions. We study a range of possible redshift distributions to illustrate the effect of this choice. Spectroscopy of representative subsamples is required to make high-accuracy

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicDiverse Scientific and Economic Studies→French-language works237,207→