MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The evolution of the Fundamental Plane of radio galaxies from z∼ 0.5 to the present day

2010· article· en· W2133513465 on OpenAlexaff
Peter D. Herbert, M. J. Jarvis, Chris J. Willott, Ross J. McLure, Ewan Mitchell, Steve Rawlings, Gary J. Hill, J. S. Dunlop

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsRadio galaxyFundamental plane (elliptical galaxies)LuminosityGalaxyQuasarVelocity dispersionAstronomyElliptical galaxyGalaxy formation and evolutionStellar massLenticular galaxyStar formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present deep spectroscopic data for a 24-object subsample of our full 41-object z∼ 0.5 radio galaxy sample in order to investigate the evolution of the Fundamental Plane of radio galaxies. We find that the low-luminosity, Fanaroff–Riley type I (FRI), radio galaxies in our sample are consistent with the local Fundamental Plane of radio galaxies defined by Bettoni et al. when corrected for simple passive evolution of their stellar populations. However, we find that the higher luminosity, Fanaroff–Riley type II (FRII), radio galaxies are inconsistent with the local Fundamental Plane if only passive evolution is considered, and find evidence for a rotation in the Fundamental Plane at z∼ 0.5 when compared with the local relation. We show that neither passive evolution, nor a mass-dependent evolution in the mass-to-light ratio, nor an evolution in the size of the host galaxies can, by themselves, plausibly explain the observed tilt. However, we suggest that some combination of all three effects, with size evolution as the dominant factor, may be sufficient to explain the difference between the planes. We also find evidence for a correlation between host galaxy velocity dispersion and radio luminosity at the 97 per cent significance level within our subsample, although further observations are required in order to determine whether this is different for the FRI and FRII radio sources. Assuming that the MBH–σ relation still holds at z∼ 0.5, this implies that radio luminosity scales with black hole mass, in agreement with previous studies.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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