MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2131889058 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stt747

Choirs, H i galaxy groups: catalogue and detection of star-forming dwarf group members

2013· article· en· W2131889058 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sarah M. Sweet, G. R. Meurer, M. J. Drinkwater, V. A. Kilborn, Helga Dénes, Kenji Bekki, Dan Hanish, Henry C. Ferguson, P. M. Knezek, Joss Bland‐Hawthorn, M. A. Dopita, Marianne T. Doyle-Pegg, Ed Elson, K. C. Freeman, Tim Heckman, Robert C. Kennicutt, Ji Hoon Kim, B. Koribalski, M. Meyer, M. E. Putman, Emma Ryan‐Weber, Chris Smith, L. Staveley‐Smith, O. Ivy Wong, R. L. Webster, Jessica K. Werk, M. A. Zwaan

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Research CouncilScience and Technology Facilities CouncilJet Propulsion LaboratoryCanadian Space AgencyCalifornia Institute of TechnologyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsDwarf galaxyLocal GroupGalaxyGalaxy groupSurface brightnessDwarf spheroidal galaxyAstronomyStar formationElliptical galaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hα observations centred on galaxies selected from the H i Parkes All-Sky Survey (HiPASS) typically show one and sometimes two star-forming galaxies within the ∼15 arcmin beam of the Parkes 64 m H i detections. In our Survey for Ionization in Neutral Gas Galaxies (SINGG) we found 15 cases of HiPASS sources containing four or more emission line galaxies (ELGs). We name these fields Choir groups. In the most extreme case, we found a field with at least nine ELGs. In this paper, we present a catalogue of Choir group members in the context of the wider SINGG sample. The dwarf galaxies in the Choir groups would not be individually detectable in HiPASS at the observed distances if they were isolated, but are detected in SINGG narrow-band imaging due to their membership of groups with sufficiently large total H i mass. The ELGs in these groups are similar to the wider SINGG sample in terms of size, Hα equivalent width and surface brightness. Eight of these groups have two large spiral galaxies with several dwarf galaxies and may be thought of as morphological analogues of the Local Group. However, on average our groups are not significantly H i deficient, suggesting that they are at an early stage of assembly, and more like the M81 group. The Choir groups are very compact at typically only 190 kpc in projected distance between the two brightest members. They are very similar to SINGG fields in terms of star formation efficiency (SFE; the ratio of star formation rate to H i mass), showing an increasing trend in SFE with stellar mass.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations9
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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