MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2229740181 · doi:10.3847/0004-637x/818/2/182

CONSTRAINTS ON FEEDBACK IN THE LOCAL UNIVERSE: THE RELATION BETWEEN STAR FORMATION AND AGN ACTIVITY IN EARLY-TYPE GALAXIES

2016· article· en· W2229740181 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadio galaxyStar formationLuminous infrared galaxyElliptical galaxyGalaxyPeculiar galaxyBrightest cluster galaxyGalaxy cluster

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We address the relation between star formation and active galactic nucleus (AGN) activity in a sample of 231 nearby (0.0002 < z < 0.0358) early-type galaxies by carrying out a multi-wavelength study using archival observations in the UV, IR, and radio. Our results indicate that early-type galaxies in the current epoch are rarely powerful AGNs, with for a majority of the galaxies. Only massive galaxies are capable of hosting powerful radio sources while less massive galaxies are hosts to lower radio power sources. Evidence of ongoing star formation is seen in approximately 7% of the sample. The star formation rate (SFR) of these galaxies is less than 0.1 M ⊙ yr−1. They also tend to be radio faint ( ). There is a nearly equal fraction of star-forming galaxies in radio faint ( ) and radio bright galaxies ( ) suggesting that both star formation and radio mode feedback are constrained to be very low in our sample. We notice that our galaxy sample and the Brightest Cluster Galaxies follow similar trends in radio power versus SFR. This may be produced if both radio power and SFR are related to 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations29
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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