MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147060529 · doi:10.1088/0067-0049/197/2/28

AN H I SURVEY OF SIX LOCAL GROUP ANALOGS. II. H I PROPERTIES OF GROUP GALAXIES

2011· article· en· W2147060529 on OpenAlexaff
D. J. Pisano, David G. Barnes, L. Staveley‐Smith, B. K. Gibson, V. A. Kilborn, K. C. Freeman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxy groupGalaxyLocal GroupDwarf galaxySpiral galaxyGroup (periodic table)TelescopeAstronomyGalaxy formation and evolution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have conducted an H I 21cm emission-line survey of six loose groups of galaxies chosen to be analogs to the Local Group. The survey was conducted using the Parkes multibeam instrument and the Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) over a 1Mpc2 area and covering the full depth of each group, with an MH I sensitivity of 7 × 105 M. Our survey detected 110sources, 61 of which are associated with the six groups. All of these sources were confirmed with ATCA observations or were previously cataloged by HIPASS. The sources all have optical counterparts and properties consistent with dwarf irregular or late-type spiral galaxies. We present here the H I properties of the groups and their galaxies. We derive an H I mass function (HIMF) for the groups that is consistent with being flatter than the equivalent field HIMF. We also derive a circular velocity distribution function, tracing the luminous dark matter halos in the groups, that is consistent with those of the Local Group and HIPASS galaxies, both of which are shallower than that of clusters or predictions from cold dark matter models of galaxy formation.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations63
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal Supplement SeriesSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207