MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088015724 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/3/984

THE RECENT STAR FORMATION HISTORY OF NGC 5102

2010· article· en· W2088015724 on OpenAlexaff
S. F. Beaulieu, K. C. Freeman, S. L. Hidalgo, Colin Norman, Peter J. Quinn

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre for Research in Astrophysics of Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBulgeAstrophysicsPhysicsStarsStar formationPhotometry (optics)Stellar massAstronomyGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present Hubble Space Telescope photometry of young stars in NGC 5102, a nearby gas-rich post-starburst S0 galaxy with a bright young stellar nucleus. We use the IAC-pop/MinnIAC algorithm to derive the recent star formation history in three fields in the bulge and disk of NGC 5102. In the disk fields, the recent star formation rate has declined monotonically and is now barely detectable, but a starburst is still in progress in the bulge and has added about 2% to the mass of the bulge over the last 200 Myr. Other studies of star formation in NGC 5102 indicate that about 20% of its stellar mass was added over the past Gyr. If this is correct, then much of the stellar mass of the bulge may have formed over this period. It seems likely that this star formation was fueled by the accretion of a gas-rich system with H i mass of about 2 × 10 9 M ☉ , which has now been almost completely converted into stars. The large mass of recently formed stars and the blue colors of the bulge suggest that the current starburst, which is now fading, may have made a significant contribution to building the bulge of NGC 5102.

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)0.000
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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.197
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 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

Citations7
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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