MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift Survey: the red sequence AGN fraction and its environment and redshift dependence

2008· article· en· W2113730964 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedshiftSkyGalaxyRedshift surveyPopulationActive galactic nucleusRed shift

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We measure the dependence of the active galactic nuclei (AGN) fraction on local environment at z∼ 1, using spectroscopic data taken from the DEEP2 Galaxy Redshift Survey, and Chandra X-ray data from the All-Wavelength Extended Groth Strip International Survey (AEGIS). To provide a clean sample of AGN, we restrict our analysis to the red sequence population; this also reduces additional colour–environment correlations. We find evidence that high-redshift LINERs in DEEP2 tend to favour higher density environments relative to the red population from which they are drawn. In contrast, Seyferts and X-ray selected AGN at z∼ 1 show little (or no) environmental dependencies within the same underlying population. We compare these results with a sample of local AGN drawn from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). Contrary to the high-redshift behaviour, we find that both LINERs and Seyferts in the SDSS show a slowly declining red sequence AGN fraction towards high-density environments. Interestingly, at z∼ 1 red sequence Seyferts and LINERs are approximately equally abundant. By z∼ 0, however, the red Seyfert population has declined relative to the LINER population by over a factor of ∼4.5. We speculate on possible interpretations of our results.

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 score0.007
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
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.202
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

Citations29
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→