MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2979333579 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b25

The Dragonfly Edge-on Galaxies Survey: Shaping the Outer disk of NGC 4565 via Accretion

2020· article· en· W2979333579 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStarlightSurface brightnessGalaxyAccretion (finance)AsymmetryHubble sequenceSkyExtinction (optical mineralogy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present deep g- and r-band imaging of the well-known edge-on galaxy NGC 4565 (the “Needle Galaxy”), observed as part of the Dragonfly Edge-on Galaxies Survey. The 3σ local surface brightness contrast limit on 10″ scales is 28.616 ± 0.005 mag arcsec−2 for the r-band image and 28.936 ± 0.005 mag arcsec−2 for the g-band image. We trace the galaxy’s starlight in narrow slice profiles spanning over 90 kpc along the major axis (with bin sizes ranging from 1.7 × 0.5 to 1.7 × 7.8 kpc) to surface brightnesses below 29 mag arcsec−2. We confirm the previously observed asymmetric disk truncation in NGC 4565. In addition, the sharp northwest truncation turns over to a shallower component that coincides with a fan-like feature seen to wrap around the northwest disk limb. We propose that the fan may be a tidal ribbon and qualitatively replicate the fan with simple simulations, although alternative explanations of the fan and the disk’s asymmetry are shown to be possible. In any case, we conclude that there is strong evidence for accretion-based outer disk growth in NGC 4565.

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)0.000
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→