MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970423706 · doi:10.1086/508859

H<scp>i</scp>Studies of the Sculptor Group Galaxies. VIII. The Background Galaxies: NGC 24 and NGC 45

2006· article· en· W1970423706 on OpenAlexaff
L. Chemin, C. Carignan, Nathalie Drouin, K. C. Freeman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxySurface brightnessHubble sequenceGalaxy groupAstronomyDiscStellar populationElliptical galaxyStar formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to complete our HI survey of galaxies in the Sculptor group area, VLA observations of NGC 24 and NGC 45 are presented. These two galaxies of similar magnitude M_B ~ -17.4 lie in the background of the Sculptor group and are low surface brightness galaxies, especially NGC 45. The HI distribution and kinematics are regular for NGC 24 while NGC 45 exhibits a kinematical twist of its major axis. A tilted-ring model shows that the position angle of the major axis changes by ~25 degrees. A best-fit model of their mass distribution gives mass-to-light ratios for the stellar disk of 2.5 and 5.2 for NGC 24 and NGC 45 respectively. These values are higher than the ones expected from stellar population synthesis models. Despite the large dark matter contribution, the galaxy mass is still dominated by the stellar component in their very inner regions. These high mass-to-light ratios are typical of what is seen in low surface brightness galaxies and may indicate that, in those galaxies, disks are far from the maximum disk case. The halo parameters derived from the best-fit models are thus lower limits.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations29
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207