The stellar and hot gas content of low-mass galaxy clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyse the stellar and hot gas content of 18 nearby, low-mass galaxy clusters, detected in redshift space and selected to have a dynamical mass 3 × 1014 < M/M⊙ < 6 × 1014 (h= 0.7), as measured from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey. We combine X-ray measurements from both Chandra and XMM with ground-based near-infrared observations from CTIO, Anglo-Australian Telescope and Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope to compare the mass in hot gas and stars to the dynamical mass and state of the clusters. Only 13 of the clusters are detected in X-ray emission, and for these systems we find that a range of 7–20 per cent of their baryonic mass, and <3 per cent of their dynamical mass, is detected in starlight, similar to what is observed in more massive clusters. In contrast, the five undetected clusters are underluminous in X-ray emission, by up to a factor of 10, given their stellar mass. Although the velocity distribution of cluster members in these systems is indistinguishable from a Gaussian, all show subtle signs of being unrelaxed: either they lack a central, dominant galaxy, or the bright galaxy distribution is less concentrated and/or more elongated than the rest of the sample. Thus we conclude that low-mass clusters and groups selected from the velocity distribution of their galaxies exhibit a dichotomy in their hot gas properties. Either they are detected in X-ray, in which case they generally lie on the usual scaling relations, or they are completely undetected in X-ray emission. The non-detections may be partly related to the apparently young dynamical state of the clusters, but it remains a distinct possibility that some of these systems are exceptionally devoid of hot emitting gas as the result of its expulsion or rarefaction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".