MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014595241 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/141/3/87

THE SPACE DENSITY EVOLUTION OF WET AND DRY MERGERS IN THE CANADA-FRANCE-HAWAII TELESCOPE LEGACY SURVEY

2011· article· en· W2014595241 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard C. Y. Chou, Carrie Bridge, Roberto Abraham

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalaxyAstrophysicsPhysicsRedshiftGalaxy mergerGalaxy formation and evolutionAstronomySpitzer Space TelescopePopulationTelescopeDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze 1298 merging galaxies with redshifts up to z = 0.7 from the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Legacy Survey, taken from the catalog presented in the work of Bridge et al. By analyzing the internal colors of these systems, we show that the so-called wet and dry mergers evolve in different senses, and quantify the space densities of these systems. The local space density of wet mergers is essentially identical to the local space density of dry mergers. The evolution in the total merger rate is modest out to z ~ 0.7, although the wet and dry populations have different evolutionary trends. At higher redshifts, dry mergers make a smaller contribution to the total merging galaxy population, but this is offset by a roughly equivalent increase in the contribution from wet mergers. By comparing the mass density function of early-type galaxies to the corresponding mass density function for merging systems, we show that not all the major mergers with the highest masses (M_(stellar) > 10^(11) M_⊙) will end up with the most massive early-type galaxies, unless the merging timescale is dramatically longer than that usually assumed. On the other hand, the usually assumed merging timescale of ~0.5-1 Gyr is quite consistent with the data if we suppose that only less massive early-type galaxies form via mergers. Since low-intermediate-mass ellipticals are 10-100 times more common than their most massive counterparts, the hierarchical explanation for the origin of early-type galaxies may be correct for the vast majority of early types, even if incorrect for the most massive ones.

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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.945

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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