MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4403846946 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad77cf

Systematically Measuring Ultradiffuse Galaxies. VII. The H i Survey Overview

2024· article· en· W4403846946 on OpenAlexaff
Ananthan Karunakaran, Khadeejah Motiwala, Kristine Spekkens, Dennis Zaritsky, Richard L. Donnerstein, Arjun Dey

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxyAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present the results from the neutral hydrogen (H i) follow-up survey of 378 optically detected ultradiffuse galaxy (UDG) candidates from the Systematically Measuring Ultra-Diffuse Galaxies survey using the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope. We detect H i in 110 targets and determine 37 to be UDGs and 73 to be low-surface-brightness (LSB) dwarfs based on their effective radii and central surface brightnesses. In line with previous studies, we find that: (i) our H i detections have on average bluer g − r colors and more irregular morphologies than our H i nondetections, (ii) our H i detections populate the tail end of the star-forming main sequence from the ALFALFA catalog with marginally lower specific star formation rates, and (iii) H i detections are mostly in relatively isolated (i.e., field) environments, while most nondetections have at least one nearby neighbor in projection. We find that the H i mass to stellar mass ratios (i.e., gas richnesses) scale with the physical sizes for UDGs and LSB dwarfs alike, suggesting that mechanisms other than bursty star formation feedback may be at play for UDGs. However, we find a stronger trend between gas richnesses and physical sizes if we define UDGs using their effective surface brightness instead of their central surface brightness. We are in the process of using this unprecedented sample of UDG candidates to carry out detailed follow-up studies (i.e., star formation and environmental analysis, comparisons to simulations) and are obtaining resolved H i observations for several of them.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→