MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982717117 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/135/5/1877

GALAXY PAIRS IN THE SLOAN DIGITAL SKY SURVEY. I. STAR FORMATION, ACTIVE GALACTIC NUCLEUS FRACTION, AND THE LUMINOSITY/MASS-METALLICITY RELATION

2008· article· en· W1982717117 on OpenAlexaff
Sara L. Ellison, David R. Patton, Luc Simard, Alan W. McConnachie

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsTrent UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxyStellar massSkyAstronomyMetallicityRedshiftStar formationField galaxyLuminosityActive galactic nucleusRedshift survey

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a sample of 1716 galaxies with companions within Δ v <500 km s −1 , r p < 80 h −1 70 kpc and stellar mass ratio 0.1 < M 1 / M 2 < 10 from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 4. The galaxy pairs are selected from the Main Galaxy Sample using stringent and well-understood criteria for redshift, spectral quality, available stellar masses, and metallicities. In agreement with previous studies, we find an enhancement in the star-formation rate (SFR) of galaxy pairs at projected separations <30–40 h −1 70 kpc. In addition, we find that this enhancement is highest (and extends to the greatest separations) for galaxies of approximately equal mass, the so-called major pairs. However, SFR enhancement can still be detected for a sample of galaxy pairs whose masses are within a factor of 10 of each other. Based on these results, we define a sample of close pairs (Δ v <500 km s −1 , r p < 30 h −1 70 kpc, and 0.1 < M 1 / M 2 < 10) which we use to investigate interaction-induced effects in the luminosity–metallicity (LZ) relation. In agreement with the one previous study of the LZ relation in paired galaxies, we find an offset to lower metallicities (by ∼0.1 dex) for a given luminosity for galaxies in pairs compared to the control sample. We also present the first mass–metallicity (MZ) relation comparison between paired galaxies and the field and again find an offset to lower metallicities (by ∼0.05 dex) for a given mass. The smaller offset in the MZ relation indicates that both higher luminosities and lower metallicities may contribute to the shift of pairs relative to the control in the LZ relation. We show that the offset in the LZ relation depends on galaxy half-light radius, r h . Galaxies with r h ≲ 3 h −1 70 kpc and with a close companion show a 0.05–0.1 dex downward offset in metallicity compared to control galaxies of the same size. Larger galaxies do not show this offset and have LZ and MZ relations consistent with the control sample. We investigate the physical impetus behind this empirical dependence on r h and consider the galaxy's dynamical time and bulge fractions as possible causes. We conclude that the former is unlikely to be a fundamental driver of the offset in the LZ relation for paired galaxies, but that bulge fraction may play a role. Finally, we study the active galactic nucleus (AGN) fraction in both the pair and control sample and find that whilst selecting galaxies in different cuts of color and asymmetry yields different AGN fractions, the fraction for pairs and the control sample are consistent for a given set of selection criteria. This indicates that if AGNs are ignited as a result of interactions, this activity begins later than the close pairs stage (i.e. once the merger is complete).

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)0.001
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations525
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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