MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2901274151 · doi:10.1093/mnras/sty3139

Atomic gas fractions in active galactic nucleus host galaxies

2018· article· en· W2901274151 on OpenAlexafffund
Sara L. Ellison, Toby Brown, Barbara Catinella, L. Cortese

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Victoria
FundersAustralian Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsActive galactic nucleusGalaxyAstrophysicsNucleusAstronomyHost (biology)Luminous infrared galaxyMedicineGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The feedback from an active galactic nucleus (AGN) is frequently invoked as a mechanism through which gas can be heated or removed from a galaxy. However, gas fraction measurements in AGN hosts have yielded mixed support for this scenario. Here, we revisit the assessment of fgas (= MHI/M⋆) in z < 0.05 AGN hosts in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) using two complementary techniques. First, we investigate fgas for 75 AGN host galaxies in the extended GALEX Arecibo SDSS Survey (xGASS), whose atomic gas fractions are complete to a few per cent. Second, we construct H i spectral stacks of 1562 AGN from the Arecibo Legacy Fast ALFA (ALFALFA) survey, which enables us to extend the AGN sample to lower stellar masses. Both techniques find that, at fixed M⋆, AGN hosts with log (M⋆/M⊙) ≳ 10.2 are H i rich by a factor of ∼2. However, this gas fraction excess disappears when the control sample is additionally matched in star formation rate (SFR), indicating that these AGN hosts are actually H i normal. At lower stellar mass, the stacking analysis reveals that AGN hosts are H i poor at fixed stellar mass. In the lowest M⋆ regime probed by our sample, 9 < log (M⋆/M⊙) < 9.6, the H i deficit in AGN hosts is a factor of ∼4, and remains at a factor of ∼2 even when the control sample is additionally matched in SFR. Our results help reconcile previously conflicting results, by showing that matching control samples by more than just stellar mass is critical for a rigorous comparison.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations34
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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