MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4293252159 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202142057

The XXL Survey

2022· article· en· W4293252159 on OpenAlexaff
Jacob P. Crossett, Sean McGee, T. J. Ponman, M. E. Ramos-Ceja, M. J. I. Brown, B. J. Maughan, A. S. G. Robotham, J. P. Willis, C. Wood, Joss Bland‐Hawthorn, Sarah Brough, Simon P. Driver, Benne W. Holwerda, Andrew Hopkins, J. Loveday, M. S. Owers, S. Phillipps, M. Pierre, Kevin A. Pimbblet

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilComité Mixto ESO-Gobierno de Chile
KeywordsAstrophysicsPhysicsGalaxyLuminosityGalaxy groupVelocity dispersionAstronomyGalaxy cluster

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why are some galaxy groups pervaded by a hot X-ray emitting intracluster medium, whilst others have no detectable X-ray emission? Is the presence of hot gas a reliable indicator of dynamical maturity, and can some virialised groups contain little or none of it? What are the main differences between samples of groups selected in the X-ray and optical bands? We address these questions by studying 232 optical spectroscopically selected groups from the Galaxy And Mass Assembly (GAMA) survey that overlap the XXL X-ray cluster survey. X-ray aperture flux measurements combined with GAMA group data provides the largest available sample of optical groups with detailed galaxy membership information and consistently measured X-ray fluxes and upper limits. A sample of 142 of these groups is divided into three subsets based on the relative strength of X-ray and optical emission, and we see a trend in galaxy properties between these subsets: X-ray overluminous groups contain a lower fraction of both blue and star forming galaxies compared with X-ray underluminous systems. X-ray overluminous groups also have a more dominant central galaxy, with a magnitude gap between first and second ranked galaxies on average 0.22 mag larger than in underluminous groups. Moreover, the central galaxy in overluminous groups lies closer to the luminosity-weighted centre of the group. We examine a number of other structural properties of our groups, such as axis ratio, velocity dispersion, and group crossing time, and find evidence of trends with X-ray emission in some of these properties despite the high stochastic noise arising from the limited number of group galaxies. We attribute the trends we see primarily to the evolutionary state of groups, with X-ray overluminous systems being more dynamically evolved than underluminous groups. The X-ray overluminous groups have had more time to develop a luminous intragroup medium, quench member galaxies, and build the mass of the central galaxy through mergers compared to underluminous groups. However, an interesting minority of X-ray underluminous groups have properties that suggest them to be dynamically mature. We find that the lack of hot gas in these systems cannot be accounted for by high star formation efficiency, suggesting that high gas entropy resulting from feedback is the likely cause of their weak X-ray emission.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0690.051

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and Astrophysics→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→