Solo dwarfs IV: comparing and contrasting satellite and isolated dwarf galaxies in the Local Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We compare and contrast the stellar structures of isolated Local Group dwarf galaxies, as traced by their oldest stellar populations, with the satellite dwarf galaxies of the Milky Way and M 31. All Local Group dwarfs with Mv ≤ −6 and μo < 26.5 mag arcsec−2 are considered, taking advantage of measurements from surveys that use similar observations and analysis techniques. For the isolated dwarfs, we use the results from Solitary Local (Solo) Dwarf Galaxy Survey. We begin by confirming that the structural and dynamical properties of the two satellite populations are not obviously statistically different from each other, but we note that there many more satellites around M 31 than around the Milky Way down to equivalent magnitude and surface brightness limits. We find that dwarfs in close proximity to a massive galaxy generally show more scatter in their Kormendy relations than those in isolation. Specifically, isolated Local Group dwarf galaxies show a tighter trend of half-light radius versus magnitude than the satellite populations, and similar effects are also seen for related parameters. There appears to be a transition in the structural and dynamical properties of the dwarf galaxy population around ∼400 kpc from the Milky Way and M 31, such that the smallest, faintest, and most circular dwarf galaxies are found closer than this separation. We discuss the impact of selection effects on our analysis, and we argue that our results point to the significance of tidal interactions on the population of systems within approximately 400 kpc from the Milky Way and M 31.
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".