MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380032748 · doi:10.1017/s1743921322004392

The Impact of the Group Environment on the Molecular Gas and Star Formation Activity

2021· article· en· W4380032748 on OpenAlexaff
Bumhyun Lee, Jing Wang, Aeree Chung, Luis C. Ho, Juan Molina, Yongjung Kim, Shun Wang, Bi‐Qing For, B. Koribalski, Kristine Spekkens, A. Bosma, Benne W. Holwerda, L. Verdes‐Montenegro

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Astronomical Union · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Laser Applications
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of Canada
FundersMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Research FoundationAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y UniversidadesKorea Astronomy and Space Science InstituteNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGalaxy groupPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxyStar formationLuminous infrared galaxyPeculiar galaxyElliptical galaxyGroup (periodic table)Astronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract At least half of the local galaxies reside in galaxy groups, which indicates that the group is the common environment where galaxies evolve. Therefore, it is important to probe how significantly galaxies are affected by group environmental processes, in order to obtain a better understanding of galaxy evolution. We carried out a new CO imaging survey for 31 galaxies in the IC 1459 and NGC 4636 groups, using the Atacama Compact Array, to study the effect of the group environment on the molecular gas properties and the star formation activity. With our resolved CO data, combined with high-resolution H i images, we find asymmetric CO and H i distributions in the group galaxies. Compared to isolated galaxies, group members have relatively low molecular gas fraction and low star formation rate. These results suggest that the group environment can change the properties of cold gas components and star formation in group 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Astronomical UnionSame topicSpectroscopy and Laser ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207