MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

On the H i content, dust-to-gas ratio and nature of Mg ii absorbers

2009· article· en· W2020623222 on OpenAlexaff
Brice Ménard, Doron Chelouche

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsMetallicityGalaxyRedshiftEquivalent widthSkyAstronomyEmission spectrumSpectral line

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We estimate the mean dust-to-gas ratio of Mg ii absorbers as a function of rest equivalent width W0 and redshift over the range 0.5 < z < 1.4. Using the expanded Sloan Digital Sky Survey/Hubble Space Telescope sample of low-redshift Lyman-α absorbers, we first show the existence of a 8σ correlation between the mean hydrogen column density 〈NH i〉 and W0, an indicator of gas velocity dispersion. By combining these results with recent dust-reddening measurements, we show that the mean dust-to-gas ratio of Mg ii absorbers does not appreciably depend on rest equivalent width. Assuming that, on average, dust-to-gas ratio is proportional to metallicity, we find its redshift evolution to be consistent with that of L★ galaxies from z= 0.5 to 1.4, and we show that our constraints disfavour dwarf galaxies as the origin of such absorbers. We discuss other scenarios and favour galactic outflows from ∼L★ galaxies as the origin of the majority of strong Mg ii absorbers. Finally, we show that, once evolutionary effects are taken into account, the Bohlin et al. relation between AV and NH is also satisfied by strong Mg ii systems down to lower column densities than those probed in our Galaxy.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.195
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

Citations82
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207