MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2120880319 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/2/1639

BARRED GALAXIES IN THE ABELL 901/2 SUPERCLUSTER WITH STAGES

2009· article· en· W2120880319 on OpenAlexaff
Irina Marinova, Shardha Jogee, Amanda Heiderman, F. D. Barazza, Meghan E. Gray, M. Barden, Christian Wolf, Chien Y. Peng, David Bacon, Michael L. Balogh, Eric F. Bell, A. Böhm, J. A. R. Caldwell, Boris Häußler, Catherine Heymans, K. Jahnkę, E. van Kampen, K. Lane, Daniel H. McIntosh, Klaus Meisenheimer, S. F. Sánchez, Rachel S. Somerville, Andy Taylor, L. Wisotzki, Xianzhong Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of WaterlooHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationAustrian Science FundDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftSpace Telescope Science InstituteNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSupercluster (genetic)AstrophysicsPhysicsBulgeBar (unit)GalaxyRedshiftCluster (spacecraft)Galaxy clusterAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a study of bar and host disk evolution in a dense cluster environment, based on a sample of ∼800 bright ( M V ⩽ −18) galaxies in the Abell 901/2 supercluster at z ∼ 0.165. We use Hubble Space Telescope ( HST ) Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) F606W imaging from the STAGES survey, and data from Spitzer , XMM-Newton , and COMBO-17. We identify and characterize bars through ellipse-fitting, and other morphological features through visual classification. We find the following results. (1) To define the optical fraction of barred disk galaxies, we explore three commonly used methods for selecting disk galaxies. We find 625, 485, and 353 disk galaxies, respectively, via visual classification, a single component Sérsic cut ( n ⩽ 2.5), and a blue-cloud cut. In cluster environments, the latter two methods suffer from serious limitations, and miss 31% and 51%, respectively, of visually identified disks, particularly the many red, bulge-dominated disk galaxies in clusters. (2) For moderately inclined disks, the three methods of disk selection, however, yield a similar global optical bar fraction ( f bar-opt ) of 34% +10% −3% (115/340), 31% +10% −3% (58/189), and 30% +10% −3% (72/241), respectively. (3) We explore f bar-opt as a function of host galaxy properties and find that it rises in brighter galaxies and those which appear to have no significant bulge component. Within a given absolute magnitude bin, f bar-opt is higher in visually selected disk galaxies that have no bulge as opposed to those with bulges. Conversely, for a given visual morphological class, f bar-opt rises at higher luminosities. Both results are similar to trends found in the field. (4) For bright early-types, as well as faint late-type systems with no evident bulge, the optical bar fraction in the Abell 901/2 clusters is comparable within a factor of 1.1–1.4 to that of field galaxies at lower redshifts ( z < 0.04). (5) Between the core and the virial radius of the cluster ( R ∼ 0.25–1.2 Mpc) at intermediate environmental densities (log(Σ 10 ) ∼ 1.7–2.3), the optical bar fraction does not appear to depend strongly on the local environment density tracers (κ, Σ 10 , and intracluster medium (ICM) density), and varies at most by a factor of ∼1.3. Inside the cluster core, we are limited by number statistics, projection effects, and different trends from different indicators, but overall f bar-opt does not show evidence for a variation larger than a factor of 1.5. We discuss the implications of our results for the evolution of bars and disks in dense environments.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
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

Citations41
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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