MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981769908 · doi:10.1086/425306

Evolved Galaxies at <i>z</i>  &gt; 1.5 from the Gemini Deep Deep Survey: The Formation Epoch of Massive Stellar Systems

2004· article· en· W1981769908 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick J. McCarthy, D. Le Borgne, D. Crampton, Hsiao‐Wen Chen, Roberto Abraham, Karl Glazebrook, S. Savaglio, R. G. Carlberg, Ronald O. Marzke, Kathy Roth, Inger Jørgensen, I. Hook, Richard Murowinski, S. Juneau

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsAstronomyGalaxyLuminous infrared galaxyStar formationElliptical galaxyPopulationGalaxy formation and evolutionStellar massMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present spectroscopic evidence from the Gemini Deep Deep Survey for a significant population of color-selected red galaxies at 1.3 &lt; z, &lt; 2.2 whose integrated light is dominated by evolved stars. Unlike radio-selected objects, the z &gt; 1.5 old galaxies have a sky density greater than 0.1 arcmin-2. Conservative age estimates for 20 galaxies with z &gt; 1.3. 〈z〉 = 1.49, give a median age of 1.2 Gyr and 〈z f〉 = 2.4. One-quarter of the galaxies have inferred z f &gt; 4. Models restricted to [Fe/H[ ≤ 0 give median ages and zf of 2.3 Gyr and 3.3, respectively. These galaxies are among the most massive and contribute ∼50% of the stellar mass density at 1 &lt; z &lt; 2. The derived ages and most probable star formation histories suggest a high star formation rate (∼300-500 M⊙, yr-1) phase in the progenitor population. We argue that most of the red galaxies are not descendants of the typical z ∼ 3 Lyman break galaxies. Galaxies associated with luminous submillimeter sources have the requisite star formation rates to be the progenitor population. Our results point toward early and rapid formation for a significant fraction of present-day massive 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 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 score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.200
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 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

Citations215
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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