MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2146602332 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/705/2/1433

INTERACTING GALAXIES IN THE A901/902 SUPERCLUSTER WITH STAGES

2009· article· en· W2146602332 on OpenAlexafffund
Amanda Heiderman, Shardha Jogee, Irina Marinova, E. van Kampen, M. Barden, Chien Y. Peng, Catherine Heymans, Meghan E. Gray, Eric F. Bell, David Bacon, Michael L. Balogh, F. D. Barazza, A. Böhm, J. A. R. Caldwell, Boris Häußler, K. Jahnkę, K. Lane, Daniel H. McIntosh, Klaus Meisenheimer, S. F. Sánchez, Rachel S. Somerville, Andy Taylor, L. Wisotzki, Christian Wolf, Xianzhong Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionSpace Telescope Science InstituteDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftAustrian Science FundNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSupercluster (genetic)Galaxy mergerPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxyGalaxy clusterMerge (version control)Cluster (spacecraft)Velocity dispersionRADIUSAstronomyGalaxy formation and evolutionComputer scienceInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a study of galaxy mergers and the influence of environment in the Abell 901/902 supercluster at z ∼ 0.165, based on 893 bright ( R Vega ⩽ 24) intermediate-mass ( M * ⩾ 10 9 M ☉ ) galaxies. We use HST ACS F606W data from the Space Telescope A901/902 Galaxy Evolution Survey, COMBO-17, Spitzer 24 μm, and XMM-Newton X-ray data. Our analysis utilizes both a physically driven visual classification system and quantitative CAS parameters to identify systems which show evidence of a recent or ongoing merger of mass ratio >1/10 (i.e., major and minor mergers). Our results are (1) after visual classification and minimizing the contamination from false projection pairs, we find that the merger fraction f merge is 0.023 ± 0.007. The estimated fractions of likely major mergers, likely minor mergers, and ambiguous cases are 0.01 ± 0.004, 0.006 ± 0.003, and 0.007 ± 0.003, respectively. (2) All the mergers lie outside the cluster core of radius R < 0.25 Mpc: the lack of mergers in the core is likely due to the large galaxy velocity dispersion in the core. The mergers, instead, populate the region (0.25 Mpc < R ⩽ 2 Mpc) between the core and the cluster outskirt. In this region, the estimated frequency of mergers is similar to those seen at typical group overdensities in N -body simulations of accreting groups in the A901/902 clusters. This suggests the ongoing growth of the clusters via accretion of group and field galaxies. (3) We compare our observed merger fraction with those reported in other clusters and groups out to z ∼ 0.4. Existing data points on the merger fraction for L ⩽ L * galaxies in clusters allow for a wide spectrum of scenarios, ranging from no evolution to evolution by a factor of ∼5 over z ∼ 0.17–0.4. (4) In A901/902, the fraction of interacting galaxies, which lie on the blue cloud is 80% ± 18% (16/20) versus 34% ± 7% or (294/866) for non-interacting galaxies, implying that interacting galaxies are preferentially blue. (5) The average star formation rate (SFR), based on UV or a combination of UV+IR data, is enhanced by a factor of ∼1.5–2 in mergers compared to non-interacting galaxies. However, mergers in the A901/902 clusters contribute only a small fraction (between 10% and 15%) of the total SFR density, while the rest of the SFR density comes from non-interacting galaxies.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations30
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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