Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA): active galactic nuclei in pairs of galaxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There exist conflicting observations on whether or not the environment of broad- and narrow-line active galatic nuclei (AGN) differ and this consequently questions the validity of the AGN unification model. The high spectroscopic completeness of the Galaxy and Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey makes it ideal for a comprehensive analysis of the close environment of galaxies. To exploit this, and conduct a comparative analysis of the environment of broad- and narrow-line AGN within GAMA, we use a double-Gaussian emission line fitting method to model the more complex line profiles associated with broad-line AGN. We select 209 type 1 (i.e. unobscured), 464 type 1.5–1.9 (partially obscured), and 281 type 2 (obscured) AGN within the GAMA II data base. Comparing the fractions of these with neighbouring galaxies out to a pair separation of 350 kpc h−1 and Δz < 0.012 shows no difference between AGN of different type, except at separations less than 20 kpc h−1 where our observations suggest an excess of type 2 AGN in close pairs. We analyse the properties of the galaxies neighbouring our AGN and find no significant differences in colour or the star formation activity of these galaxies. Further to this, we find that Σ5 is also consistent between broad- and narrow-line AGN. We conclude that the observations presented here are consistent with AGN unification.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".