MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1968570733 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201014572

<i>Herschel</i>photometry of brightest cluster galaxies in cooling flow clusters

2010· article· en· W1968570733 on OpenAlexaff
A. C. Edge, J. B. R. Oonk, R. Mittal, S. W. Allen, S. A. Baum, H. Böhringer, Joel N. Bregman, L. Pozzetti, F. Combes, C. S. Crawford, Megan Donahue, Eiichi Egami, A. C. Fabian, G. J. Ferland, S. Hamer, N. A. Hatch, W. Jaffe, R. M. Johnstone, B. R. McNamara, C. P. O’Dea, Paola Popesso, Alice C. Quillen, P. Salomé, Craig L. Sarazin, G. Mark Voit, R. J. Wilman, M. W. Wise

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsCooling flowPhotometry (optics)GalaxyGalaxy clusterAstronomyBrightest cluster galaxyCluster (spacecraft)Luminous infrared galaxyGalaxy groups and clustersStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The dust destruction timescales in the cores of clusters of galaxies are relatively short given their high central gas densities. However, substantial mid-infrared and sub-mm emission has been detected in many brightest cluster galaxies. In this letter we present Herschel PACS and SPIRE photometry of the brightest cluster galaxy in three strong cooling flow clusters, A1068, A2597 and Zw3146. This photometry indicates that a substantial mass of cold dust is present (> 3×107 ) at temperatures significantly lower (20–28 K) than previously thought based on limited MIR and/or sub-mm results. The mass and temperature of the dust appear to match those of the cold gas traced by CO with a gas-to-dust ratio of 80–120.

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)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations55
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207