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 OpenAlexaff
Sara L. Ellison, Hossen Teimoorinia, D. J. Rosario, J. Trevor Mendel

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.

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)0.002
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
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
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

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

Citations92
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society LettersSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207