Doubtless.
Medium confidence on classification and association. 9230 is slightly closer and makes an obvious low-z object, but 9229 would be an LAE by EW although uncertain within the errors. I call it 9230.
High confidence on association, low confidence on classification. The SED is not discriminating. The object hovers around our EW limit depending on how it's calculated and the limits straddle the cut, but the chosen method makes it [OII]. 
Medium confidence on classification and association. 9933 as low-z is the best choice. There may be a dim and blended object better centered in the imaging that doesn't get picked up in our imaging catalog, but I can't know.
Doubtless. A nice, clean LAE. Our preferred EW estimator extrapolates to a negative continuum, so our EW is only a limit. The other estimators give high but sensible EWs too.
High confidence on classification, medium confidence on association. #11269 is the most likely, but #11270 should also be considered. Either would be low-z by the EW classification. #11270 is slightly further away, so mildly disfavored. Could be both.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Probably junk. High continuum and noise with a low EW contaminated this false source. Nearby XMM source.
Very broad line. Probably [NeV]3426 for #10350. To be cross listed with 12.
Very broad line. Probably MgII2798 for #10350. To be cross listed with 11.
High confidence on association but low on classification. New photometry method makes EW estimators to put it above the cut (Old one didn't).
Doubless. This is [OII]. Cross-list with 15 as Hbeta and 20 as [OIII]5007. Point source fiber flux fraction correction is improper here.
Doubless. This is Hbeta. Cross-list with 14 as [OII] and 20 as [OIII]5007. Point source fiber flux fraction correction is improper here.
Doubtless.
Medium confidence on classification and association. There's another wimpy detection nearby that would be an LAE, but it's slightly further and perhaps not even robust.
High confidence on classification, medium on association. #12757 is the better counterpart with #12756 as the second best, but either would be a low-z object.
#14451 is a little fearful since it's hard to see how it contributes flux to the red fiber. However, I have no other counterpart options so I'll take it. There's a hint of a z-band detection at a more centered position, but it doesn't get picked up in the photometric catalog. There is no [OIII] detection, although it should be on-chip. The combined spectrum shows three absorption lines that don't make much sense. The only approximate match I've found is to the LyA hypothesis and absorption in CII1334, SiIV1393, and SiII1526 although the continuum should be too dim to detect them here.
Doubless. This is [OIII]5007. Cross-list with 14 as [OII] and 15 as Hbeta. A possible XMM source. Point source fiber flux fraction correction is improper here.
This one is mysterious. The bright galaxy to the left, 13780, is a known low-z object by NED/SDSS, and we pick up it's elliptical-like spectrum too. This is exactly on [NeIII]3869, but doesn't show in the SDSS spectrum. There might be a superimposed or companion galaxy near our fiber, but it is not deblended and might simply be isophote distortion.
Junk. Cosmic ray sneaking in.
High confidence on classification, low confidence on association. There's probably no counterpart. #11649 is very weak and probably spurious.
Doubtless.
Doubtless. An XMM source.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
High confidence on association, low on classification. This is formally an [OII] by the EW cut, but it's within the errors and the other estimators put it above.
I speculate that #14396 and #14395 are either being wrongly split up by the photometry or that #14395 is the correct counterpart. Could be both too.
There appears to be no viable counterpart. 13364 would be an LAE by the EW cut, but is just outside our usual distance.
Doubtless.
High confidence on classification and association.
This counterpart's a little far from our usual comfort zone, but we appear to detect weak continuum ourselves and it is the only viable counterpart. There's a chance that instead this is an LAE with no counterpart, but the more likely truth is that #9423 is the counterpart.
Junk. This is probably a low EW continuum feature left over from a bright low-z galaxy spectrum. It doesn't match any common line with the SDSS z from 9771 being 0.109.
Doubtless. This is [OII], to be cross listed with 37 as [OIII]5007.
Doubtless. This is [OIII]5007, to be cross listed with 36 as [OII].
High confidence on association, low on classification. The EW makes it [OII], but it could be LyA within the errors or by different estimators.
Doubtless.
Junk. A cosmic ray snuck through.
This is [OII] to be cross-listed with 44 as [OIII]5007, 45 as [NeIII]3869, 51 as Hbeta, 52 as [OIII]4959, 63 as [NeV]3426, 57 as Hgamma, and 65 as Hdelta. An XMM source.
Junk. Low EW feature from continuum structure.
Junk. Low EW feature from continuum structure.
This is [OIII]5007 to be cross-listed with 41 as [OII], 45 as [NeIII]3869, 51 as Hbeta, 52 as [OIII]4959, 63 as [NeV]3426, 57 as Hgamma, and 65 as Hdelta. 
This is [NeIII]3869 to be cross-listed with 41 as [OII], 44 as [OIII]5007, 51 as Hbeta, 52 as [OIII]4959, 63 as [NeV]3426, 57 as Hgamma, and 65 as Hdelta. 
Junk. Low EW feature from continuum structure.
Junk. Low EW feature from continuum structure.
Junk. Low EW feature from continuum structure.
Junk. Low EW feature from continuum structure.
Junk. Low EW feature from continuum structure.
This is Hbeta to be cross-listed with 41 as [OII], 45 as [NeIII]3869, 44 as [OIII]5007, 52 as [OIII]4959, 63 as [NeV]3426, 57 as Hgamma, and 65 as Hdelta. 
This is [OIII]4959 to be cross-listed with 41 as [OII], 44 as [OIII]5007, 45 as [NeIII]3869, 51 as Hbeta, 63 as [NeV]3426, 57 as Hgamma, and 65 as Hdelta. 
Junk. This is cross talk noise from a nearby star.
Junk. This is some cross talk noise from a nearby star, and also just some low EW continuum feature.
Doubtless.
Junk. Low EW feature from continuum structure.
Doubtless. Hgamma to be cross listed with 41 as [OII], 44 as [OIII]5007, 45 as [NeIII]3869, 51 as Hbeta, 52 as [OIII]4959, 63 as [NeV]3426, and 65 as Hdelta. 
Junk. A second Hgamma detection from 57. 
High confidence. The counterpart is a little more displaced than we usually find, but it's the only viable option. There's a small chance that there is no counterpart and this is then an LAE.
High confidence. Buried near the noise of a bright star, there appears to be a background low-z galaxy that we pick up in the imaging. 
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature of a very bright star.
Junk. This is cross talk noise from a nearby star.
This is [NeV]3426 from a very bright AGN/starburst. To be cross-listed with 41 as [OII], 44 as [OIII]5007, 45 as [NeIII]3869, 51 as Hbeta, 52 as [OIII]4959, 57 as Hgamma, and 65 as Hdelta. 
Junk. Low EW feature from continuum structure.
This is Hdelta to be cross listed with 65 as [NeV]3426, 41 as [OII], 44 as [OIII]5007, 44 as [NeIII]3869, 51 as Hbeta, 52 as [OIII]4959, and 57 as Hgamma.
Junk. This is cross talk noise from a nearby star.
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature of a very bright star.
Junk. Low EW feature from continuum structure.
Junk. Low EW feature from continuum structure.
Junk. Low EW feature from continuum structure.
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature of a very bright star.
High confidence in asociation, low in classification. EW cut puts it right above the LAE cut, but object is too bright R=21.0, so I fixed classification to [OII]. Don't think is [OIII] because other lines are absent, and line is very very bright.
Doubtless.
High confidence on classification. Medium confidence on association.
Medium confidence on classification and association. The only viable counterpart, #8492, is quite far off. 
High confidence on classification and low on association. There might be no counterpart.
Doubtless. There's a NED SDSS spectral match to 9703.
Doubtless. Lots of cross listings. This is [OII]. 94 is Hbeta, and 95 is [OIII]4959. 
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
High confidence on the classification, low confidence on the association. #11720 or #11721 may either be the counterpart, and either would pass the EW cut at an LAE.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
Medium confidence on everything. 14107 as [OII] is the most obvious choice, but 14106 would be a possible LAE too.
High confidence on association, medium on classification. It makes the EW cut to be an LAE, but the errors straddle the cut.
High confidence. Close (4.8") to an XMM source.
Doubtless.
Doubtless. This is [OIII]5007, 91 is [OII] and 92 is [OIII]4959.
Doubtless. This is [OII], and there are cross-listings. 92 is [OIII]4959 and 90 is [OIII]5007.
Doubtless. This is [OIII]4959, 91 is [OII], and 90 is [OIII]5007.
High confidence.
Doubtless with cross listings. This is Hbeta. 78 is [OII], 95 is [OIII]4959, and [OIII]5007 is too close to 5577. 
Doubtless. Lots of cross listings. This is [OIII]4959. 78 is [OII], 94 is Hbeta, and [OIII]5007 is too close to 5577. 
Doubtless.
Medium confidence on association and classification. The less likely option is #10815 which would be an LAE by the EW cut.
Doubtless.
Wonderful object. So broad, it's probably an AGN but there are no NED counterparts. Doubtless on the classification, medium confidence on the counterpart. #11315 is best, but #11335, #11190, and #11189 have a chance. Also, no XMM counterpart.
Doubtless.
High confidence. There's only one viable counterpart. Although it's a little further out than usual, I take it as the counterpart. The less likely case is that we have no imaging counterpart, and then this would be an LAE. 
Doubtless.
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature.
High confidence on association, certainly low-z, and medium confidence on classification. Based on absorption lines, this looks like Hbeta.
There's a large spatial error, but we detect continuum so this isn't really uncertain. 
I call this junk as there's a better centered detection. The brightest galaxy here has it's own detections, and this is slightly offset in wavelength. There is another fiber not in the detection aperture indicating the clump below the aperture, #13221, is the real counterpart and looks like an HII region in the disk of #13222. This is [OII] and should be cross-listed with 107 as Hbeta. [OIII]5007 gets too close to 5577 to be detected.
I call this junk for the same reason as 106. This is Hbeta to be cross-listed with 106 as [OII].
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature.
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature.
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature.
Junk. This is a low EW continuum feature.
Doubtless. This is [OII] to be cross-listed with 113 which is [OIII]5007, 114 which is Hbeta, and 120 which is [OIII]4959.
Doubtless. This is [OIII]5007 to be cross-listed with 112 which is [OII], 114 which is Hbeta, and 120 which is [OIII]4959.
Doubtless. This is Hbeta to be cross-listed with 113 which is [OIII]5007, 112 which is [OII], and 120 which is [OIII]4959.
Doubtless.
High confidence.
This one is uncertain. First off, the detection has poor depth because a cosmic ray took one frame out. Then, it appears there may be an imaging detection that's not quite picked up in our catalog toward the fiber's center in z, but it could be noise. If this is the counterpart or there is no counterpart, this would be an LAE. If we formally go with #15936 as the counterpart, we also make the EW cut but the limit straddles the cut.
Doubtless. This is [OII] to be cross-listed with 121 as [OIII]5007.
Doubtless.
Doubtless. This is [OIII]4959 to be cross-listed with 113 which is [OIII]5007, 112 which is [OII], and 114 which is Hbeta.
Doubtless. This is [OIII]5007 to be cross-listed with 118 as [OII].
High EW, but too bright R<23 to be an LAE, changed class to [OII]. JJA changed back by robustness of SED EW and the no GALEX detection.
High confidence.
Doubtless. This is [OII] to be cross-listed with 125 which is Hbeta, 126 which is [OIII]4959, and 127 which is [OIII]5007.
Doubtless. This is Hbeta to be cross-listed with 124 which is [OII], 126 which is [OIII]4959, and 127 which is [OIII]5007.
Doubtless. This is [OIII]4959 to be cross-listed with 124 which is [OII], 125 which is Hbeta, and 127 which is [OIII]5007.
Doubtless. This is [OIII]5007 to be cross-listed with 124 which is [OII], 125 which is Hbeta, and 126 which is [OIII]4959.
Junk. The line looks dominated by one hot pixel.
This line looks very bad, and there's no counterpart. The line is too broad and perhaps fake. However, I keep it as a possible LAE lacking a strict reason to exclude it.
High confidence on classification, medium on association. I take 16248 as closer, but 16247 would also be an LAE by the EW cut.
High confidence in association, low in lcassification. makes EW cut, but with large error. Too bright R=21.9 to be an LAE so fixed class to [OII] emitter
Doubtless.
Doubtless.
This one's difficult, but I'm calling it junk. The cross-dispersion profile looks horrible. I suspect we have flat field error here.
Junk. A cosmic ray snuck through.
Junk. A cosmic ray snuck through.
The obvious counterpart option, #15035, is probably not the object since it has a different NED redshift. This is probably just a junk, low EW continuum feature.