A CCD Study of the Environment of Seyfert Galaxies. III. Host Galaxies and the Nearby Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A technique is described that permits the robust decomposition of the bulge and disk components of a sample of Seyfert galaxies, as well as a (control) sample of non-active galaxies matched to the Seyferts in the distributions of redshift, luminosity and morphological classification. The structural parameters of the host galaxies in both samples are measured. No statistically significant differences at greater than the 95% level are found in these parameters according to a K-S test. ``Companion galaxies'' --- defined as any galaxy within a projected separation of 200 h^{-1} kpc from the center of the host --- are identified and their basic properties measured. A comparison between the active and control samples in the distributions of apparent R magnitude, absolute R magnitude (assuming the ``companions'' are at the distance of the host), projected separation from the host, position angle relative to the host, magnitude difference between the companion and host, and strength of the tidal parameter, show no statistically significant differences. Similarly, no statistically significant differences are found between the control and active sample host galaxies in terms of light asymmetries --- bars, rings, isophotal twisting, etc. The implications for a model in which interactions and mergers are responsible for inciting activity in galactic nuclei are discussed briefly.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".