Evidence of Magellanic-like moderate redshift H <scp>i</scp>-rich galaxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present equivalent width measurements and limits of six diffuse interstellar bands (DIBs, λ 4428, λ 5705, λ 5780, λ 5797, λ 6284, and λ 6613) in seven damped Lyα absorbers (DLAs) over the redshift range 0.091 ≤ z ≤ 0.524, sampling 20.3 ≤ log N(Hi) ≤ 21.7. Based upon the Galactic DIB–N(H i) relation, the λ 6284 DIB equivalent width upper limits in four of the seven DLAs are a factor of 4–10 times below the λ 6284 DIB equivalent widths observed in the Galaxy, but are not inconsistent with those present in the Magellanic Clouds. Assuming the Galactic DIB–E(B − V) relation, we determine reddening upper limits for the DLAs in our sample. Based upon the E(B − V) limits, the gas-to-dust ratios, N(H i)/E(B − V), of the four aforementioned DLAs are at least ~5 times higher than that of the Galactic ISM and are more consistent with the Large Magellanic Cloud. The ratios of two other DLAs are at least a factor of a few times higher. The best constraints on reddening derive from the upper limits for the λ 5780 and λ 6284 DIBs, which yield E(B − V) ≤ 0.08 mag for four of the seven DLAs and are more consistent with the Magellanic Clouds rather than the Galaxy. Our results suggest that, in DLAs, quantities related to dust, such as reddening and metallicity, appear to have a greater impact on DIB strengths than does H i gas abundance. The molecules responsible for the DIBs in DLA selected sightlines are underabundant relative to sightlines in the Galaxy of similarly high N(H i). Using DIBs to study the ISM of DLAs provide evidence that at least some population of DLAs are more Magellanic-like than Galactic-like.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".