Preprint typeset using L ATEX style emulateapj v. 03/07/07 THE ANGULAR CORRELATIONS OF GALAXIES IN THE COSMOS FIELD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present measurements of the two-point galaxy angular correlation function w(θ) in the COSMOS field. Independent determinations of w(θ) as a function of magnitude limit are presented for both the HST ACS catalog and also for the ground-based data from Subaru and the CFHT. Despite having significantly different masks, these three determinations agree well. At bright magnitudes (IAB < 22), our data generally match very well with existing measurements and with mock catalogs based on semianalytic galaxy formation calculations of Kitzbichler & White (2006) from the Millennium Simulation. The exception is that our result is at the upper end of the expected cosmic variance scatter for θ> 10 arcmin, which we attribute to a particularly rich structure known to exist at z ≃ 0.8. For fainter samples, however, the level of clustering is somewhat higher than reported by some previous studies: in all three catalogues we find w(θ = 1 ′ ) ≃ 0.014 at a median IAB magnitude of 24. At these very faintest magnitudes, our measurements agree well with the latest determinations from the Canada-France Legacy Survey. This level of clustering is approximately double what is predicted by the semi-analytic catalogs (at all angles). The semi-analytic results allow an estimate of cosmic variance, which is too small to account for the discrepancy. We therefore conclude that the mean amplitude of clustering at this level is higher than previously estimated. Subject headings: cosmology: observations — cosmology: large scale structure of universe — cosmology:
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 arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.810 | 0.815 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".