Ultraviolet imaging observations of three jellyfish galaxies: star formation suppression in the centre and ongoing star formation in stripped tails
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Spiral galaxies undergo strong ram-pressure effects when they fall into the galaxy cluster potential. As a consequence, their gas is stripped to form extended tails within which star formation can happen, giving them the typical jellyfish appearance. The ultraviolet imaging observations of jellyfish galaxies provide an opportunity to understand ongoing star formation in the stripped tails. We report the ultraviolet observations of the jellyfish galaxies JW39, JO60, JO194 and compare with observations in optical continuum and Hα. We detect knots of star formation in the disc and tails of the galaxies and find that their UV and Hα flux are well correlated. The optical emission line ratio maps of these galaxies are used to identify for every region the emission mechanism, due to either star formation, LINER or a mix of the two phenomena. The star-forming regions in the emission line maps match very well with the regions having significant UV flux. The central regions of two galaxies (JW39, JO194) show a reduction in UV flux which coincides with composite or LINER regions in the emission line maps. The galaxies studied here demonstrate significant star formation in the stripped tails, suppressed star formation in the central regions and present a possible case of accelerated quenching happening in jellyfish galaxies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".