MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2066928321 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/2/1537

LUMINOUS INFRARED GALAXIES WITH THE SUBMILLIMETER ARRAY. II. COMPARING THE CO (3-2) SIZES AND LUMINOSITIES OF LOCAL AND HIGH-REDSHIFT LUMINOUS INFRARED GALAXIES

2009· article· en· W2066928321 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalaxyLuminous infrared galaxyStar formationHaloInfraredPopulationLine (geometry)Luminosity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a detailed comparison of the CO (3-2) emitting molecular gas between a local sample of luminous infrared galaxies (U/LIRGs) and a high-redshift sample that comprises submm selected galaxies (SMGs), quasars, and Lyman Break Galaxies (LBGs). The U/LIRG sample consists of our recent CO (3-2) survey using the Submillimeter Array while the CO (3-2) data for the high-redshift population are obtained from the literature. We find that the and L FIR relation is correlated over five orders of magnitude, which suggests that the molecular gas traced in CO (3-2) emission is a robust tracer of dusty star formation activity. The near unity slope of 0.93 ± 0.03 obtained from a fit to this relation suggests that the star formation efficiency is constant to within a factor of 2 across different types of galaxies residing in vastly different epochs. The CO (3-2) size measurements suggest that the molecular gas disks in local U/LIRGs (0.3-3.1 kpc) are much more compact than the SMGs (3-16 kpc), and that the size scales of SMGs are comparable to the nuclear separation (5-40 kpc) of the widely separated nuclei of U/LIRGs in our sample. We argue from these results that the SMGs studied here are predominantly intermediate stage mergers, and that the wider line widths arise from the violent merger of two massive gas-rich galaxies taking place deep in a massive halo potential.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.189 · 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.

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

Citations136
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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