MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The ATLAS3D project - II. Morphologies, kinemetric features and alignment between photometric and kinematic axes of early-type galaxies

2011· article· en· W2119277713 on OpenAlexaff
Davor Krajnović, Éric Emsellem, Michele Cappellari, Katherine Alatalo, Leo Blitz, Maxime Bois, F. Bournaud, Martin Bureau, Roger L. Davies, Timothy A. Davis, P. T. de Zeeuw, Sadegh Khochfar, H. Kuntschner, P.-Y. Lablanche, Richard M. McDermid, Raffaella Morganti, Thorsten Naab, Tom Oosterloo, M. Sarzi, Nicholas Scott, P. Serra, Anne-Marie Weijmans, Lisa M. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilInstituto de Astrofísica de CanariasNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationCalifornia Institute of TechnologyJet Propulsion LaboratoryMax-Planck-GesellschaftDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftAlfred P. Sloan FoundationU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxyVelocity dispersionKinematicsRADIUSPeculiar galaxyEffective radiusElliptical galaxyDiscClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use the ATLAS3D sample of 260 early-type galaxies to study the apparent kinematic misalignment angle, Ψ, defined as the angle between the photometric and kinematic major axes. We find that 71 per cent of nearby early-type galaxies are strictly aligned systems (Ψ≤ 5°), an additional 14 per cent have 5° < Ψ≤ 10° and 90 per cent of galaxies have Ψ≤ 15°. Taking into account measurement uncertainties, 90 per cent of galaxies can be considered aligned to better than 5°, suggesting that only a small fraction of early-type galaxies (∼10 per cent) are not consistent with the axisymmetry within the projected half-light radius. We identify morphological features such as bars and rings (30 per cent), dust structures (16 per cent), blue nuclear colours (6 per cent) and evidence of interactions (8 per cent) visible on ATLAS3D galaxies. We use kinemetry to analyse the mean velocity maps and separate galaxies into two broad types of regular and non-regular rotators. We find 82 per cent of regular rotators and 17 per cent of non-regular rotators, with two galaxies that we were not able to classify due to the poor data quality. The non-regular rotators are typically found in dense regions and are massive. We characterize the specific features in the mean velocity and velocity dispersion maps. The majority of galaxies do not have any specific features, but we highlight here the frequency of the kinematically distinct cores (7 per cent of galaxies) and the aligned double peaks in the velocity dispersion maps (4 per cent of galaxies). We separate galaxies into five kinematic groups based on the kinemetric features, which are then used to interpret the (Ψ-ε) diagram. Most of the galaxies that are misaligned have complex kinematics and are non-regular rotators. In addition, some show evidence of the interaction and might not be in equilibrium, while some are barred. While the trends are weak, there is a tendency that large values of Ψ are found in galaxies at intermediate environmental densities and among the most massive galaxies in the sample. Taking into account the kinematic alignment and the kinemetric analysis, the majority of early-type galaxies have velocity maps more similar to that of the spiral discs than to that of the remnants of equal-mass mergers. We suggest that the most common formation mechanism for early-type galaxies preserves the axisymmetry of the disc progenitors and their general kinematic properties. Less commonly, the formation process results in a triaxial galaxy with much lower net angular momentum. © 2011 The Authors Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society © 2011 RAS.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.014

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations479
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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