MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Compact groups in theory and practice - II. Comparing the observed and predicted nature of galaxies in compact groups

2008· article· en· W2148921618 on OpenAlexaff
Crystal M. Brasseur, Alan W. McConnachie, Sara L. Ellison, David R. Patton

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsTrent UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxyVelocity dispersionRedshiftPopulationGalaxy groupLenticular galaxyAstronomyElliptical galaxyPeculiar galaxyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine the properties of galaxies in compact groups (CGs) identified in a mock galaxy catalogue based upon the Millennium Run simulation. The overall properties of groups identified in projection are in general agreement with the best available observational constraints. However, only ∼30 per cent of these simulated groups are found to be truly compact in three dimensions, suggesting that interlopers strongly affect our observed understanding of the properties of galaxies in CGs. These simulations predict that genuine CG galaxies are an extremely homogeneous population, confined nearly exclusively to the red sequence: they are best described as ‘red and dead’ ellipticals. When interlopers are included, the population becomes much more heterogeneous, due to bluer, star-forming, gas-rich, late-type galaxies incorrectly identified as CG members. These models suggest that selection of members by redshift, such that the line-of-sight velocity dispersion of the group is less than 1000 km s−1, significantly reduces contamination to the 30 per cent level. Selection of members by galaxy colour, a technique used frequently for galaxy clusters, is also predicted to dramatically reduce contamination rates for CG 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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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