MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041844664 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/1/102

THE VELA CLOUD: A GIANT H I ANOMALY IN THE NGC 3256 GROUP

2009· article· en· W2041844664 on OpenAlexaff
Jayanne English, B. Koribalski, Joss Bland‐Hawthorn, K. C. Freeman, C. F. McCain

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVelaPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxyLocal GroupDwarf galaxyAstronomyGlobular clusterStar formationSolar massPulsar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) observations of a galaxy-sized intergalactic H I cloud ("the Vela Cloud") in the NGC3256 galaxy group. The group contains the prominent merging galaxy NGC3256, which is surrounded by a number of H I fragments, the tidally disturbed galaxy NGC3263, and several other peculiar galaxies. The Vela Cloud, with an H I mass of 3-5 , resides southeast of NGC3256 and west of NGC3263, within an area of 9′ × 16′ (100 kpc × 175 kpc for an adopted distance of 38Mpc). In our ATCA data the Vela Cloud appears as three diffuse components and contains four density enhancements. The Vela Cloud's properties, together with its group environment, suggest that it has a tidal origin. Each density enhancement contains of H I gas, which is sufficient material for the formation of globular cluster progenitors. However, if we represent the enhancements as Bonnor-Ebert spheres, then the pressure of the surrounding H I would need to increase by at least a factor of 9 in order to cause the collapse of an enhancement. Thus we do not expect them to form massive bound stellar systems like super star clusters or tidal dwarf galaxies. Since the H I density enhancements have some properties in common with high-velocity clouds, we explore whether they may evolve to be identified with these starless clouds instead.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations35
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207