MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

U-, B- and r-band luminosity functions of galaxies in the Coma cluster

2002· article· en· W2115859369 on OpenAlexaff
Marco W. Beijersbergen, Henk Hoekstra, Pieter van Dokkum, J. M. van der Hulst

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsComa ClusterGalaxyLuminosity functionRedshiftLuminosityGalaxy clusterCluster (spacecraft)Coma (optics)Brightest cluster galaxyAstronomyPassbandOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a deep multicolour CCD mosaic of the Coma cluster (Abell 1656), covering 5.2deg2 in the B and r bands, and 1.3deg2 in the U band. This large, homogeneous data set provides a valuable low redshift comparison sample for studies of galaxies in distant clusters. In this paper we present our survey, and study the dependence of the galaxy luminosity function (LF) on passband and radial distance from the cluster centre. The U, B and r band LFs of the complete sample cannot be represented by single Schechter functions. For the central area, , we find best fitting Schechter parameters of and , and and and . The LF becomes steeper at larger radial distances from the cluster centre. The effect is most pronounced in the U band. This result is consistent with the presence of a star forming dwarf population at a large distance from the cluster centre, which may be in the process of being accreted by the cluster. The shapes of the LFs of the NGC 4839 group support a scenario in which the group has already passed through the centre.

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)0.001
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.184
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations77
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207