MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2070039048 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/790/2/132

SOME LIKE IT HOT: LINKING DIFFUSE X-RAY LUMINOSITY, BARYONIC MASS, AND STAR FORMATION RATE IN COMPACT GROUPS OF GALAXIES

2014· article· en· W2070039048 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStar formationGalaxyStellar massGalaxy formation and evolutionStarsHaloGalaxy groupStar clusterGalaxy clusterGalaxy groups and clusters

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an analysis of the diffuse X-ray emission in 19 compact groups (CGs) of galaxies observed with Chandra . The hottest, most X-ray luminous CGs agree well with the galaxy cluster X-ray scaling relations in L X – T and L X –σ, even in CGs where the hot gas is associated with only the brightest galaxy. Using Spitzer photometry, we compute stellar masses and classify Hickson CGs 19, 22, 40, and 42, and RSCGs 32, 44, and 86 as fossil groups using a new definition for fossil systems that includes a broader range of masses. We find that CGs with total stellar and H i masses ≳ 10 11.3 M ☉ are often X-ray luminous, while lower-mass CGs only sometimes exhibit faint, localized X-ray emission. Additionally, we compare the diffuse X-ray luminosity against both the total UV and 24 μm star formation rates of each CG and optical colors of the most massive galaxy in each of the CGs. The most X-ray luminous CGs have the lowest star formation rates, likely because there is no cold gas available for star formation, either because the majority of the baryons in these CGs are in stars or the X-ray halo, or due to gas stripping from the galaxies in CGs with hot halos. Finally, the optical colors that trace recent star formation histories of the most massive group galaxies do not correlate with the X-ray luminosities of the CGs, indicating that perhaps the current state of the X-ray halos is independent of the recent history of stellar mass assembly in the most massive galaxies.

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)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.205
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations16
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→