MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060123927 · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/804/1/l26

SPECTROSCOPIC CONFIRMATION OF THE EXISTENCE OF LARGE, DIFFUSE GALAXIES IN THE COMA CLUSTER

2015· article· en· W2060123927 on OpenAlexafffund
Pieter van Dokkum, Aaron J. Romanowsky, Roberto Abraham, Jean P. Brodie, Charlie Conroy, Marla Geha, Allison Merritt, Alexa Villaume, Jielai Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComa ClusterGalaxyAstrophysicsComa (optics)Cluster (spacecraft)Galaxy clusterPhysicsAstronomyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We recently identified a population of low surface brightness objects in the field of the z = 0.023 Coma cluster, using the Dragonfly Telephoto Array. Here we present Keck spectroscopy of one of the largest of these "ultradiffuse galaxies" (UDGs), confirming that it is a member of the cluster. The galaxy has prominent absorption features, including the Ca II H+K lines and the G-band, and no detected emission lines. Its radial velocity of cz=6280120 km s -1 is within the 1 velocity dispersion of the Coma cluster. The galaxy has an effective radius of 4.3 0.3 kpc and a Srsic index of 0.89 0.06, as measured from Keck imaging. We find no indications of tidal tails or other distortions, at least out to a radius of r 2 e . We show that UDGs are located in a previously sparsely populated region of the size-magnitude plane of quiescent stellar systems, as they are 6 mag fainter than normal early-type galaxies of the same size. It appears that the luminosity distribution of large quiescent galaxies is not continuous, although this could largely be due to selection effects. Dynamical measurements are needed to determine whether the dark matter halos of UDGs are similar to those of galaxies with the same luminosity or to those of galaxies with the same size.

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)0.000
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 score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations130
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207