MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2003234024 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/737/2/92

KECK DEEP FIELDS. IV. LUMINOSITY-DEPENDENT CLUSTERING AND GALAXY DOWNSIZING IN UV-SELECTED GALAXIES AT<i>z</i>= 4, 3, AND 2

2011· article· en· W2003234024 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalaxyHaloDark matterLuminosityRedshiftCluster analysisStellar massGalaxy formation and evolution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the luminosity-dependent clustering of rest-frame UV-selected galaxies at z ∼ 4, 3, 2.2, and 1.7 in the Keck Deep Fields, which are complete to = 27 and cover 169 arcmin 2 . We find that at z ∼ 4 and 3, UV-bright galaxies cluster more strongly than UV-faint ones, but at z ∼ 2.2 and 1.7, the UV-bright galaxies are no longer the most strongly clustered. We derive mass estimates for objects in our sample by comparing our measurements to the predicted clustering of dark matter halos in the Millennium Simulation. From these estimates, we infer relationships between halo mass and star formation rate (SFR), and find that the most massive dark matter halos in our sample host galaxies with high SFRs ( M 1700 < −20, or >50 M ☉ yr −1 ) at z ∼ 3 and 4, moderate SFRs (−20 < M 1700 < −19, or ∼20 M ☉ yr −1 ) at z ∼ 2.2, and lower SFRs (−19 < M 1700 < −18, or ∼2 M ☉ yr −1 ) at z ∼ 1.7. We believe our measurements may provide a new line of evidence for galaxy downsizing by extending that concept from stellar to halo mass. We also find that the objects with blue UV colors in our sample are much more strongly clustered than those with red UV colors, and we propose that this may be due to the presence of the 2175 Å dust absorption bump in more massive halos, which contain the older stellar populations and dust needed to produce the feature. The relatively small area covered by the survey means that the absolute values of the correlation lengths and halo masses we derive are heavily dependent on the "integral constraint" correction, but the uniformly deep coverage across a large-redshift interval allows us to detect several important trends that are independent of this correction.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→