MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988296704 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/135/4/1636

THE STELLAR CONTENT OF THE POST-STARBURST S0 GALAXY NGC 5102

2008· article· en· W1988296704 on OpenAlexaff
T. J. Davidge

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxyRed supergiantSpiral galaxyAsymptotic giant branchStarsAstronomyStar formationPopulationSolar massMedicineSupergiant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stellar content of the S0 galaxy NGC 5102 is investigated using deep r ′ and i ′ images obtained with GMOS-S. A modest population of bright main sequence stars and red supergiants (RSGs) is detected throughout the western portion of the disk. Based on the numbers of main sequence stars, the star formation rate (SFR) in NGC 5102 during the past ten million years is estimated to have been 0.02 M ⊙ year −1. The majority of red giant branch (RGB) stars in the disk of NGC 5102 have [M/H] between –0.9 and –0.1, and the metallicity distribution of RGB stars at intermediate galactocentric radii peaks near [M/H] ∼ −0.6. RGB stars are traced out to galactocentric distances of 10 kpc, which corresponds to ∼ 14 disk scale lengths. A large population of bright asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars are seen throughout the western portion of the disk, and the youngest of these have log(tyr) ∼ 8.1. It is concluded that (1) stars that formed within the past Gyr comprise ∼ 20 % of the total stellar disk mass, and (2) the SFR during intermediate epochs in the disk of NGC 5102 was at least 1.4 M ⊙ year −1. Thus, large-scale star formation occured throughout the disk of NGC 5102 at approximately the same time that similar elevated levels of 1 Based on observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory, which is operated by the Association of

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations24
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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