Star formation at z=1.47 from HiZELS: an Hα+[O ii] double-blind study★
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results from the first wide and deep dual narrow-band survey to select Hα and [O ii] line emitters at z= 1.47 ± 0.02, exploiting synergies between the United Kingdom Infrared Telescope and the Subaru telescope by using matched narrow-band filters in the H and z′ bands. The Hα survey at z= 1.47 reaches a 3σ flux limit of FHα≈ 7 × 10−17 erg s−1 cm−2 (corresponding to a limiting star formation rate (SFR) in Hα of ≈7 M⊙ yr−1) and detects ≈200 Hα emitters over 0.7 deg2, while the much deeper [O ii] survey reaches an effective flux of ≈7 × 10−18 erg s−1 cm−2 (SFR in [O ii] of ∼1 M⊙ yr−1), detecting ≈1400 z= 1.47 [O ii] emitters in a matched comoving volume of ∼2.5 × 105 Mpc3. The combined survey results in the identification of 190 simultaneous Hα and [O ii] emitters at z= 1.47. Hα and [O ii] luminosity functions are derived and both are shown to evolve significantly from z∼ 0 in a consistent way. The SFR density of the Universe at z= 1.47 is evaluated, with the Hα analysis yielding ρSFR= 0.16 ± 0.05 M⊙ yr−1 Mpc−3 and the [O ii] analysis ρSFR= 0.17 ± 0.04 M⊙ yr−1 Mpc−3. The measurements are combined with other studies, providing a self-consistent measurement of the star formation history of the Universe over the last ∼11 Gyr. By using a large comparison sample at z∼ 0.1, derived from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), [O ii]/Hα line ratios are calibrated as probes of dust extinction. Hα emitters at z∼ 1.47 show on average AHα≈ 1 mag, the same as found by SDSS in the local Universe. It is shown that although dust extinction correlates with SFR, the relation evolves by about ∼0.5 mag from z∼ 1.5 to ∼0, with local relations overpredicting the dust extinction corrections at high z by that amount. Stellar mass is found to be a much more fundamental extinction predictor, with the same relation between mass and dust extinction being valid at both z∼ 0 and ∼1.5, at least for low and moderate stellar masses. The evolution in the extinction–SFR relation is therefore interpreted as being due to the evolution in median specific SFRs over cosmic time. Dust extinction corrections as a function of optical colours are also derived and shown to be broadly valid at both z∼ 0 and ∼1.5, offering simpler mechanisms for estimating extinction in moderately star-forming systems over the last ∼9 Gyr.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".