| phenomenon | acceleration of the cosmic expansion— “A cosmological explanation for this observation is that a po sitive vacuum energy density accelerates the expansion.” |
| claim-type | existence— “High-redshift SNe Ia are observed to be dimmer than expected in an empty Universe (i.e., Ω M = 0 ) with no cosmological constant.” |
| method — evidence | — “We present spectral and photometric observations of 10 type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) in the redshift range 0.16 ≤ z ≤ 0.62.” |
| transfer | from statistics (Bayesian inference, Monte Carlo): Bayesian statistical inference and Monte Carlo simulation applied to Type Ia supernova data to infer the expansion history and cosmic acceleration— “we used a Monte Carlo simulation to understand how SNe Ia in our nearby and distant samples were c hosen” | transfers[0] |
| mechanism | A PARAMETER THAT CANNOT BE USED BECAUSE IT VARIES IS REPLACED BY VARYING IT DELIBERATELY: limiting magnitudes vary FROM FRAME TO FRAME, NIGHT TO NIGHT, AND FILM TO FILM, SO IT IS DIFFICULT TO USE THE ACTUAL DETECTION LIMITS in the simulation - NEVERTHELESS simulations were run VARYING the limiting magnitude, and THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE RESULTS SIGNIFICANTLY. An unusable measurement becomes a swept parameter, and the sweep is the answer to its own unusability— “Limiting magnitudes vary from frame to frame, night to night, and film to film, so it is difficult to use the actual detection limits in our simulation. Nevertheless, we have run simulations varying the limiting magnitude, and this does not change the results significantly.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | A MORE REALISTIC PRIOR IS ADOPTED, AND THE WORD `REALISTIC` IS THE JUSTIFICATION: a MORE REALISTIC A PRIORI PROBABILITY DISTRIBUTION for extinction HAS BEEN UTILIZED, taken from another group's calculations. The same physical quantity, in the same year, is treated the opposite way by perlmutter1999, which describes the realistic option and declines it in favour of a conservative one— “A more realistic a priori probability distribution for extinction has been utilized from the calculations of Hatano, Branch, & Deaton (1997).” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | A CORRECTION'S ASSUMPTION IS STATED AND CONTRADICTED IN THE SAME SENTENCE: such a K-correction ASSUMES that the spectral energy distribution of all SNe Ia OF A GIVEN AGE IS HOMOGENEOUS - YET IT HAS BEEN SHOWN otherwise, with a list of references. The step is used, its premise is named, and the premise is reported false, in one breath— “Such a K-correction assumes that the spectral energy distribution of all SNe Ia of a given age is homogeneous, yet it has been shown” | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | A SYSTEMATIC ERROR IS MEASURED WITH SYNTHETIC OBJECTS AND THEN SUBTRACTED, AND THE RESULT IS CALLED UNBIASED: a correction BASED ON THE SYSTEMATIC ERROR DETERMINED FROM THE ARTIFICIAL STARS was applied to the measured magnitude TO YIELD AN UNBIASED ESTIMATE. The word `unbiased` is earned by a procedure on objects that were never there— “A correction based on the systematic error determined from the artificial stars was applied to the measured SN magnitude to yield an unbiased estimate of the SN magnitude.” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | THE SYNTHETIC OBJECTS ARE MATCHED TO THE REAL ONES ON TWO NAMED PROPERTIES: these ARTIFICIAL STARS HAD THE SAME BRIGHTNESS AND BACKGROUND AS THE MEASURED SNe. What makes the simulation stand in for the measurement is an equality on exactly two attributes, and they are listed— “These artificial stars had the same brightness and background as the measured SNe” | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | A CLASSIFICATION IS FIXED BY COMPARISON TO EXEMPLARS WHOSE OWN PROPERTY COMES FROM A DIFFERENT MEASUREMENT: final spectral classification IS OPTIMIZED BY COMPARING the observed spectrum to WELL-OBSERVED SPECTRA of the same class AT THE SAME AGE AS DETERMINED FROM THE LIGHT CURVES. The comparison set is selected using a quantity measured by another instrument entirely— “Final spectral classification is optimized by comparing the observed spectrum to well-observed spectra of SNe Ia at the same age as determined from the light curves.” | mechanisms[5] |
| mechanism | COMPARABILITY BETWEEN TWO EXPERIMENTS IS DEFERRED TO FUTURE WORK, AND THE CONDITION IS NAMED: FUTURE ANALYSIS WHICH SEEKS TO LIMIT SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTIES AFFECTING BOTH EXPERIMENTS SHOULD YIELD MEANINGFUL COMPARISONS. The present comparison is therefore not claimed to be meaningful, and what would make it so is stated— “Future analysis which seeks to limit systematic uncertainties affecting both experiments should yield meaningful comparisons.” | mechanisms[6] |
| contradicts | Perlmutter et al. (1997)— “These results are inconsistent at the ∼ 2σ confidence level with those of Perlmutter et al. (1997), who found Ω M = 0 . 94 ± 0. 3 (Ω Λ = 0 . 06) for a flat Universe and Ω M = 0 . 88 ± 0. 64 for Ω Λ ≡ 0.” | claim_relations[0] |
| replicates | High-z Supernova Search Team (Garnavich et al. 1998; Schmidt et al. 1998)— “The results reported here are consistent with other reporte d observations of high-redshift SNe Ia from the High-z Supernova Search Team (Garnavich et al. 1998 ; Schmidt et al. 1998), and the improved statistics of this larger sample reveal the potential influe nce of a positive cosmological constant.” | claim_relations[1] |
| builds-on | Garnavich et al. 1998; Schmidt et al. 1998; Riess et al. (1998a)— “Combined with previous data from our High-Z Supernova Search Team (Garnav ich et al. 1998; Schmidt et al. 1998) and Riess et al. (1998a), this expanded set of 16 high-r edshift supernovae and a set of 34 nearby supernovae are used to place constraints on the fol lowing cosmological parameters: the Hubble constant ( H0), the mass density (Ω M… | claim_relations[2] |
| sense | q0, the deceleration parameter - MODEL-RELATIVE BY CONSTRUCTION: it is defined at the present epoch while the data span a wide range of redshift, so the paper states the value can only be determined inside a model of what produces the deceleration— “we can only determine the value of q0 within the context of a model for its origin” | senses[0] |
| sense | the K-correction - AS A PASSBAND DIFFERENCE: it quantifies the gap between the supernova light falling into a standard filter at zero redshift and the light falling into the filters actually used on a redshifted object, so it is a correction between instruments and not a property of the supernova— “An appropriate K-correction quantifies the difference between the supernova light which falls into a standard passband (e.g., B) at z = 0 and that which falls into the filters we employ to observe a redshifted SN Ia” | senses[1] |
| sense | the nearby sample - TRIMMED TO MATCH THE DISTANT ONE: nearby supernovae were admitted only if their light curves began within about five days of B maximum, because that is the window the high-redshift observations could cover, so the two samples were made comparable by discarding data that existed— “Because of this restriction, we also limited our consideration of nearby SNe Ia to those with light curves which began no later than ∼ 5 days after B maximum” | senses[2] |
| control | the supernova distance analysis run twice, with and without the most distant object, whose extinction and classification are uncertain — held — rules out the entire acceleration result resting on one object that is both the most informative and the least certain in the sample— “Due to the uncertain ty in this object’s extinction and classification, we will analyze the SNe Ia distances both with and without thi s most distant object.” | controls[0] |
| audit | color —causes→ K-correction — Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says differences in color WOULD alter the appropriate K-correction; conditional.— “Differences in SN Ia color, at a fixed phase, would alter the appropriate K-correction. We need to know the color of each supernova to determine its K-correction precisely” | concept_edges[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| for which use | limitation — the spectral typing and redshifts: RESIDUAL NOISE FROM THE SKY LINES REMAINS— “residual noise from the sky lines remains” | limitations[0] |
| evidence status note | limitation — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. Update, 15 September 2026: CLEARED evidence status='quote-not-in-current-staged-text' - the quote now locates in the current staged text, so the condition the marker recorded no longer holds.— “systematic uncertainties in the current Ceph eid distance scale” | limitations[1] |
| for which use | limitation — the acceleration conclusion, against its main rival: WITH THE OBSERVATIONS PRESENTED HERE, WE CANNOT RULE OUT THIS MODEST AMOUNT OF GREY INTERSTELLAR EXTINCTION— “With the observations presented here, we ca nnot rule out this modest amount of grey interstellar extinction.” | limitations[2] |
| for which use | limitation — any claim that light-curve-shape relations do not evolve: PRESENTLY, OUR SAMPLE IS TOO SMALL TO MAKE SUCH A TEST MEANINGFUL— “Presently, our sample is to small to make such a test meaningful.” | limitations[3] |
| for which use | limitation — the KS comparison of decline rates: A KOLMOGOROV-SMIRNOV TEST SHOWS NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE ... BUT THE SAMPLE IS TOO SMALL TO BE STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT - the null is uninformative— “A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test shows no significant difference in the distributions of the low and high-redshift samples, but the sample is too smal l to be statistically significant.” | limitations[4] |
| for which use | limitation — the whole cosmological inference: EVOLUTION REMAINS A SERIOUS CONCERN WHICH CAN ONLY BE EASED AND PERHAPS UNDERSTOOD BY FUTURE STUDIES— “Although our current observations revea l no indication of evolution of SNe Ia at z ≈ 0. 5, evolution remains a serious concern which can only be eased a nd perhaps understood by future studies.” | limitations[5] |
| for which use | limitation — every cosmological constraint quoted: WE MUST CONSIDER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTRAINTS REACHED FROM THE TWO FITTING METHODS TO BE A SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTY - the analysis choice moves the answer, so the spread is carried— “Until then, we must consider the difference between the cosmological constrain ts reached from the two fitting methods to be a systematic uncertainty.” | limitations[6] |
| for which use | limitation — the precision of the headline result: OUR DETECTION OF A COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT IS NOT LIMITED BY STATISTICAL ERRORS BUT BY SYSTEMATIC ONES— “Our detection of a cosmological constant is not limited by st atistical errors but by systematic ones.” | limitations[7] |
| for which use | limitation — the same scope as limitations[7]: FURTHER STUDIES ARE NEEDED TO DETERMINE THE POSSIBLE INFLUENCE OF ANY REMAINING SYSTEMATIC UNCERTAINTIES— “Further studies are n eeded to determine the possible influence of any remaining systematic uncertainties.” | limitations[8] |
| for which use | limitation — the deceleration parameter reported here: because it is defined at the current epoch while the supernovae span a wide range of redshift, its value can only be determined within the context of a model for its origin— “we can only determine the value of q0 within the context of a model for its origin” | limitations[9] |
| for which use | limitation — the comparison between nearby and high-redshift supernovae: the nearby sample was limited to light curves beginning no later than about five days after B maximum, to match the age by which the high-redshift observations ended— “Because of this restriction, we also limited our consideration of nearby SNe Ia to those with light curves which began no later than ∼ 5 days after B maximum” | limitations[10] |
| for which use | limitation — the K-corrections applied to these magnitudes: differences in supernova colour at a fixed phase would alter the appropriate correction, so each supernova's colour must be known precisely— “Differences in SN Ia color, at a fixed phase, would alter the appropriate K-correction. We need to know the color of each supernova to determine its K-correction precisely” | limitations[11] |
| evidence status note | mechanism — ON THIS FILE'S CONDITION, because it bears on every span from it. riess1998 has NO glyph codes and my first damage measurement therefore returned 1% and called it clean. The damage is DAMAGE SHAPE 8, the spurious intra-word space - "ligh t curve", "constrain ts", "treatme nt", "supernov a", "the c omposition" - which no character marks and for which an earlier note of ours showed there is no usable detector. Every span merged from this record was verified BY READING, word by word; the yield from 576 candidate sentences was seven.— “Limiting magnitudes vary from frame to frame, night to night, and film to film, so it is difficult to use the actual detection limits in our simulation. Nevertheless, we have run simulations varying the limiting magnitude, and this does not change the results significantly.” | mechanisms[0] |
| evidence status note | mechanism — RE-SLICED: ending at "(Schmidt et al." opened a bracket the span never closed - caught by the unclosed-opener check, which is the mirror of an earlier note of ours and was built three hours ago.— “These artificial stars had the same brightness and background as the measured SNe” | mechanisms[4] |
| evidence status note | transfer — QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted.— “we used a Monte Carlo simulation to understand how SNe Ia in our nearby and distant samples were c hosen” | transfers[0] |
| replication | untested |
| no type for this | a more realistic a priori probability distribution for extinction → the extinction prior this paper ADOPTS — THE SAME ADJECTIVE, THE SAME PHYSICAL QUANTITY, THE SAME YEAR, OPPOSITE DECISIONS - and no type in the vocabulary can express it. This paper ADOPTS the option it calls more realistic. perlmutter1999-omega-lambda describes the same option for the same quantity as “a less conservative but more realistic narrow prior” and DECLINES it, keeping the conservative one. 'contradicts' would be FALSE: neither team contradicts the other, they weigh the same consideration about the extinction prior and rule differently, and each calls its own reasoning 'more realistic'. All eight edge types assert that a relation HOLDS between two concepts; not one can say that two papers apply one word to opposite choices. Recorded here, per record, with each row quoting only its own paper - the cross-paper half is this paraphrase, checkable by opening perlmutter1999-omega-lambda. This is a NEW use of unhoused-relations: all 67 existing rows describe a relation inside one paper, and this is the first pair that spans two. second case;— “A more realistic a priori probability distribution for extinction has been utilized from the calculations of Hatano, Branch, & Deaton (1997).” | unhoused_relations[0] |
| limitation | residual noise from sky lines remains in the spectra— “residual noise from the sky lines remains” | limitations[0] |
| limitation | systematic uncertainties in the Cepheid distance scale affect the age estimate— “systematic uncertainties in the current Ceph eid distance scale” | limitations[1] |
| limitation | A modest amount of grey interstellar extinction cannot be excluded by these data.— “With the observations presented here, we ca nnot rule out this modest amount of grey interstellar extinction.” | limitations[2] |
| limitation | The high-redshift sample is too small to test whether light-curve-shape relations evolve with look-back time.— “Presently, our sample is to small to make such a test meaningful.” | limitations[3] |
| limitation | The KS comparison of low- and high-redshift light-curve decline rates is not statistically significant given the sample size.— “A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test shows no significant difference in the distributions of the low and high-redshift samples, but the sample is too smal l to be statistically significant.” | limitations[4] |
| limitation | Evolution of the supernova population remains a serious unresolved concern.— “Although our current observations revea l no indication of evolution of SNe Ia at z ≈ 0. 5, evolution remains a serious concern which can only be eased a nd perhaps understood by future studies.” | limitations[5] |
| limitation | The discrepancy between the two light-curve fitting methods must be carried as a systematic uncertainty.— “Until then, we must consider the difference between the cosmological constrain ts reached from the two fitting methods to be a systematic uncertainty.” | limitations[6] |
| limitation | The result is limited by systematic rather than statistical errors.— “Our detection of a cosmological constant is not limited by st atistical errors but by systematic ones.” | limitations[7] |
| limitation | Remaining systematic uncertainties require further study.— “Further studies are n eeded to determine the possible influence of any remaining systematic uncertainties.” | limitations[8] |
| limitation | The headline quantity exists only relative to an assumed model of what causes it.— “we can only determine the value of q0 within the context of a model for its origin” | limitations[9] |
| limitation | The nearby comparison sample was cut to match the observing window available at high redshift.— “Because of this restriction, we also limited our consideration of nearby SNe Ia to those with light curves which began no later than ∼ 5 days after B maximum” | limitations[10] |
| limitation | The colour correction needs a quantity the survey must itself measure well.— “Differences in SN Ia color, at a fixed phase, would alter the appropriate K-correction. We need to know the color of each supernova to determine its K-correction precisely” | limitations[11] |