Accepted to The Astronomical Journal Spectroscopic Gravitational Lens Candidates in the CNOC2 Field Galaxy Redshift Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present five candidate gravitational lenses discovered spectroscopically in the Canadian Network for Observational Cosmology Field Galaxy Redshift Survey (CNOC2), along with one found in followup observations. Each has a secure redshift based on several features, plus a discrepant emission line which does not match any known or plausible feature and is visible in multiple direct spectral images. We identify these lines as Lyα λ1216 or [Oii] λ3727 emission from galaxies lensed by, or projected onto, the CNOC2 target galaxies. Einstein radii estimated from the candidate deflector galaxy luminosities indicate that for two candidates the lines are probably [Oii] from projected z < 1 galaxies (consistent with the detection of Hβ as well as [Oii] in one of them), but that in the remaining four cases the lines could be Lyα from lensed z> 3 galaxies. We estimate that only 1.9 ± 0.7 [Oii]-emitting galaxies are expected to project onto target galaxies in the original CNOC2 sample, consistent with three or four of the six candidates being true gravitational lenses.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".