MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023436977 · doi:10.1086/498340

H<scp>i</scp>Detection of Two Dwarf S0 Galaxies in Nearby Groups: ESO 384-016 and NGC 59

2006· article· en· W2023436977 on OpenAlexaff
S. F. Beaulieu, K. C. Freeman, C. Carignan, Felix J. Lockman, Helmut Jerjen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentaurus APhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxyDwarf galaxyTelescopeSurface brightnessGalaxy groupAstronomyLocal GroupRadio galaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A H I survey of 10 dE/dS0 galaxies in the nearby Sculptor and Centaurus A groups was made using the Australia Telescope Compact Array. The observed galaxies have accurate distances derived by Jerjen et al. using the surface brightness fluctuation technique. Their absolute magnitudes are in the range -9.5 > M B > -15.3. Only two of the 10 galaxies were detected at our detection limit (∼1.0 × 10 6 M ⊙ for the Centaurus group and ∼5.3 × 10 5 M ⊙ for the Sculptor group): the two dS0 galaxies ESO 384-016 in the Centaurus A group and NGC 59 in the Sculptor group, with H I masses of × 10 6 and × 10 7 M ⊙ , respectively. Those two detections were confirmed using the Green Bank Telescope. These small H I reservoirs could fuel future generations of low-level star formation and could explain the bluer colors seen at the center of the detected galaxies. Similar to what is seen with the Virgo dwarf ellipticalss, the two objects with H I appear to be on the outskirts of the groups.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.200
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

Citations18
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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