MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985558696 · doi:10.1086/498719

Broadband Optical Properties of Massive Galaxies: The Dispersion around the Field Galaxy Color-Magnitude Relation Out to<i>z</i> ~ 0.4

2006· article· en· W1985558696 on OpenAlexaff
Richard J. Cool, Daniel J. Eisenstein, David Johnston, Ryan Scranton, J. Brinkmann, Donald P. Schneider, Idit Zehavi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxyRedshiftAstronomyStarsMagnitude (astronomy)SkyVelocity dispersionGalaxy formation and evolutionLuminous infrared galaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a sample of nearly 20,000 massive early-type galaxies selected from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, we study the color-magnitude relation for the most luminous (L > 2.2 L^{*}) field galaxies in the redshift range 0.1<z<0.4 in several colors. The intrinsic dispersion in galaxy colors is quite small in all colors studied, but the 40 milli-mag scatter in the bluest colors is a factor of two larger than the 20 milli-mag measured in the reddest bands. While each of three simple models constructed for the star formation history in these systems can satisfy the constraints placed by our measurements, none of them produce color distributions matching those observed. Subdividing by environment, we find the dispersion for galaxies in clusters to be about 11% smaller than that of more isolated systems. Finally, having resolved the red sequence, we study the color dependence of the composite spectra. Bluer galaxies on the red sequence are found to have more young stars than red galaxies; the extent of this spectral difference is marginally better described by passive evolution of an old stellar population than by a model consisting of a recent trace injection of young stars.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.556

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations35
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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