MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7097922266

Preprint typeset using L ATEX style emulateapj v. 10/09/06 THE MASSES AND SHAPES OF DARK MATTER HALOS FROM GALAXY-GALAXY LENSING IN THE

2008· article· en· W7097922266 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDark matterHaloGalaxyRedshiftDark matter haloGravitational lensWeak gravitational lensingCold dark matter
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the first galaxy-galaxy weak lensing results using early data from the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey (CFHTLS). These results are based on ∼22 deg 2 of i ′ data. From this data, we estimate the average velocity dispersion for an L * galaxy at a redshift of 0.3 to be 137 ± 11 km s −1, with a virial mass, M200, of 1.1 ± 0.2 ×10 12 h −1 M ⊙ and a rest frame mass-to-light ratio of 173±34 hM⊙/LRc⊙. We also investigate various possible sources of systematic error in detail. Additionally, we separate our lens sample into two sub-samples, divided by apparent magnitude, thus average redshift. From this early data we do not detect significant evolution in galaxy dark matter halo mass-to-light ratios from a redshift of 0.45 to 0.27. Finally, we test for non-spherical galaxy dark matter halos. Our results favor a dark matter halo with an ellipticity of ∼0.3 at the 2 σ level when averaged over all galaxies. If the sample of foreground lens galaxies is selected to favor ellipticals, the mean halo ellipticity and significance of this result increase. Subject headings: gravitational lensing, dark matter, mass-to-light ratios, galaxy halos, halo shapes 1.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Simulation or modelinglow
gptInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Domain: not available · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.5750.426

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designSimulation or modeling · Not applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical · Other

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→CategoryInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)→French-language works237,207→