MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999563842 · doi:10.1086/590542

The Luminosity Dependence of the Galaxy Merger Rate

2008· article· en· W1999563842 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalaxyLuminositySkyAbsolute magnitudeLuminosity functionMagnitude (astronomy)Galaxy mergerRange (aeronautics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We measure the number of companions per galaxy ( N c ) as a function of r -band absolute magnitude for both the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the Croton and coworkers semianalytic catalog applied to the Millennium Run simulation. For close pairs with projected separations of 5-20 h −1 kpc, velocity differences less than 500 km s −1 , and luminosity ratios between 1:2 and 2:1, we find good agreement between the observations and simulations, with N c consistently close to 0.02 over the range -22 < M r < − 18. For larger pair separations, N c ( M r ) instead becomes increasingly steep toward the faint end, implying that luminosity-dependent clustering plays an important role on small scales. Using the simulations to assess and correct for projection effects, we infer that the real-space N c ( M r ) for close pairs peaks at about M * and declines by at least a factor of 2 as M r becomes fainter. Conversely, by measuring the number density of close companions, we estimate that at least 90% of all major mergers occur between galaxies which are fainter than L * . Finally, measurements of the luminosity density of close companions indicate that L * galaxies likely dominate in terms of the overall importance of major mergers in the evolution of galaxy populations at low redshift.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations141
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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