MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The local star formation rate density: assessing calibrations using [O ii], H and UV luminosities

2010· article· en· W1916061238 on OpenAlexaff
David Gilbank, I. K. Baldry, Michael L. Balogh, Karl Glazebrook, R. G. Bower

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsRedshiftGalaxyStar formationMetallicityExtinction (optical mineralogy)Stellar massSkyEstimatorUniverseAstronomyGalaxy formation and evolutionStatisticsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We explore the use of simple star formation rate (SFR) indicators (such as may be used in high-redshift galaxy surveys) in the local Universe using [O ii], H and u-band luminosities from the deeper 275 deg2 Stripe 82 subsample of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) coupled with UV data from the Galaxy Evolution EXplorer (GALEX) satellite. We examine the consistency of such methods using the star formation rate density as a function of stellar mass in this local volume, and quantify the accuracy of corrections for dust and metallicity on the various indicators. Rest-frame u-band promises to be a particularly good SFR estimator for high-redshift studies since it does not require a particularly large or sensitive extinction correction, yet yields results broadly consistent with more observationally expensive methods. We suggest that the [O ii]-derived SFR, commonly used at higher redshifts ⁠, can be used to reliably estimate SFRs for ensembles of galaxies, but for high-mass galaxies ⁠, a larger correction than is typically used is required to compensate for the effects of metallicity dependence and dust extinction. We provide a new empirical mass-dependent correction for the [O ii]-SFR.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.205
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations109
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207