Searching for star-forming dwarf galaxies in the Antlia cluster
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. The formation and evolution of dwarf galaxies in clusters need to be understood, and this requires large aperture telescopes. \nAims. In this sense, we selected the Antlia cluster to continue our previous work in the Virgo, Fornax, and Hydra clusters and in the Local Volume (LV). Because of the scarce available literature data, we selected a small sample of five blue compact dwarf (BCD) candidates in Antlia for observation. \nMethods. Using the Gemini South and GMOS camera, we acquired the Hα imaging needed to detect star-forming regions in this sample. With the long-slit spectroscopic data of the brightest seven knots detected in three BCD candidates, we derived their basic chemical properties. Using archival VISTA VHS survey images, we derived KS magnitudes and surface brightness profile fits for the whole sample to assess basic physical properties. \nResults. FS90-98, FS90-106, and FS90-147 are confirmed as BCDs and cluster members, based on their morphology, KS surface photometry, oxygen abundance, and velocity redshift. FS90-155 and FS90-319 did not show any Hα emission, and they could not be confirmed as dwarf cluster star-forming galaxies. Based on our data, we studied some fundamental relations to compare star forming dwarfs (BCDs and dIs) in the LV and in the Virgo, Fornax, Hydra, and Antlia clusters. \nConclusions. Star-forming dwarfs in nearby clusters appear to follow same fundamental relations in the near infrared with similar objects in the LV, specifically the size-luminosity and the metallicity-luminosity, while other more fundamental relations could not be checked in Antlia due to lack of data.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".