MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2233678133 · doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slw012

The star formation rates of active galactic nuclei host galaxies

2016· article· en· W2233678133 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxyActive galactic nucleusHost (biology)Star formationStar (game theory)AstronomyDiscGalactic nucleiGalaxy formation and evolution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using artificial neural network predictions of total infrared luminosities (LIR), we compare the host galaxy star formation rates (SFRs) of ∼21 000 optically selected active galactic nuclei (AGN), 466 low-excitation radio galaxies (LERGs) and 721 mid-IR-selected AGN. SFR offsets (ΔSFR) relative to a sample of star-forming ‘main-sequence’ galaxies (matched in M⋆, z and local environment) are computed for the AGN hosts. Optically selected AGN exhibit a wide range of ΔSFR, with a distribution skewed to low SFRs and a median ΔSFR = −0.06 dex. The LERGs have SFRs that are shifted to even lower values with a median ΔSFR = −0.5 dex. In contrast, mid-IR-selected AGN have, on average, SFRs enhanced by a factor of ∼1.5. We interpret the different distributions of ΔSFR amongst the different AGN classes in the context of the relative contribution of triggering by galaxy mergers. Whereas the LERGs are predominantly fuelled through low accretion rate secular processes which are not accompanied by enhancements in SFR, mergers, which can simultaneously boost SFRs, most frequently lead to powerful, obscured AGN.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.187 · 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