MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1617877108 · doi:10.1086/319104

The Metallicity of 0.5 < [CLC][ITAL]z[/ITAL][/CLC] < 1 Field Galaxies

2001· article· en· W1617877108 on OpenAlexaff
C. M. Carollo, S. J. Lilly

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsMetallicityGalaxyRedshiftPeculiar galaxyAstronomyLuminous infrared galaxyGalaxy group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have measured the emission-line ratios in a sample of 34 Canada-France Redshift Survey star-forming galaxies with redshifts in the range of 0.5 < z < 1.0, and we have computed their metallicities by means of the empirically calibrated R 23 -metallicity estimator introduced by Pagel et al. The current analysis concentrates on the 15 galaxies with L Hβ > 1.2 × 10 41 ergs s -1 . Although our results can only be regarded as preliminary until near-IR spectroscopy of Hα and [N II] λ6583 are available, the metallicities of these galaxies appear to be remarkably similar to those of local galaxies selected in the same way, and there appears to have been little change in the relationship between metallicity and line and continuum luminosity from z ~ 1 to today. At this stage, our results do not support the idea that these galaxies, known to be generally small and with late-type morphologies, are dwarf galaxies brightened by large bursts of star formation, as had been suggested from previous studies. Rather, our findings are more consistent with a picture in which these systems are the progenitors of today's massive metal-rich galaxies.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations48
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→