MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399784307 · doi:10.25518/0037-9565.11924

Surface Brightness Properties of LSB Galaxies with the International Liquid Mirror Telescope

2024· article· en· W4399784307 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jiuyang Fu, Bhavya Ailawadhi, Talat Akhunov, E. F. Borra, Monalisa Dubey, Naveen Dukiya, Baldeep Grewal, Paul Hickson, Brajesh Kumar, Kuntal Misra, Vibhore Negi, Kumar Pranshu, Ethen Sun, Jean Surdej

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin de la Société Royale des Sciences de Liège · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaService Public de WallonieUniversité de LiègeBelgian Federal Science Policy OfficeFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, IndiaYork University
KeywordsSurface brightnessTelescopeGalaxyBrightnessAstronomyPhysicsAstrophysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low surface brightness (LSB) galaxies make up a significant fraction of the luminosity density of the local universe. Their low surface brightness suggests a different formation and evolution process compared to more-typical high-surface-brightness galaxies. This study presents an analysis of LSB galaxies found in images obtained by the International Liquid Mirror Telescope during the observation period from October 24 to November 1, 2022. 3,092 LSB galaxies were measured and separated into blue and red LSB categories based on their g′−i′ colours. In these samples, the median effective radius is 4.7 arcsec, and the median value of the mean surface brightness within the effective radius is 26.1 mag arcsec−2. The blue LSB galaxies are slightly brighter than the red LSB galaxies. No significant difference of ellipticity was found between the blue and the red LSB 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.561
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.283 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin de la Société Royale des Sciences de LiègeSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207