MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415971511 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202556541

Fossil group origins

2025· article· en· W4415971511 on OpenAlexfundno aff
S. Zarattini, A. Biviano, I. Bartalucci, J. A. L. Aguerri, C. P. Haines, M. Girardi

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryUniversity of Colorado BoulderOffice of ScienceMax-Planck-Institut für AstronomieMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e InovaçãoUniversity of OxfordYork UniversityMinisterio de Ciencia, Innovación y UniversidadesLeibniz-GemeinschaftUniversity of Notre DameInstituto de Astrofísica de CanariasEuropean Regional Development FundCarnegie Mellon UniversityAlfred P. Sloan FoundationUniversity of WashingtonJohns Hopkins UniversityEuropean CommissionMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónCarnegie Institution of WashingtonUniversity of UtahOhio State UniversityU.S. Department of EnergySmithsonian InstitutionAgencia Nacional de Investigación y DesarrolloNew Mexico State UniversityUniversity of PortsmouthVanderbilt UniversityAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónYale University
KeywordsGalaxy clusterGalaxyGalaxy groupPeculiar galaxyBrightest cluster galaxyCluster (spacecraft)Elliptical galaxyAbell 2744Luminosity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context . Fossil groups (FGs) are groups or clusters of galaxies with a single, massive, central galaxy dominating their luminosity distribution, and with a clear lack of L ∗ galaxies. The physical reason for the large magnitude gap (∆ m 12 ) in these systems is still a matter for investigation. It could originate in an early formation of FGs, followed by passive evolution in which all L ∗ galaxies merged with the central one, and/or it could be related to the fact that galaxies accreting on the FGs move on very radial orbits, reach small pericentric radii, and are merged on shorter timescales than regular cluster galaxies. The latter properties could be linked with the peculiar position of FGs within the cosmic web. Aims . To shed light on the origin of FGs, we determine the velocity anisotropy profile β ( r ) of the fossil cluster A267, which is related to the orbital distribution of cluster galaxies. This is the first individual FG for which the orbital distribution of its galaxies is determined. We aim to confirm previous findings based on stack samples that indicate that FGs, on average, host galaxies on more radial orbits than normal clusters. Methods . We started with a sample of 2315 redshifts for galaxies in the field of A267 and we determined the membership for 329 of them. Of these, 174 are located within the virial radius of the cluster, and we used them as tracers of the gravitational potential of the cluster to solve the Jeans equation for dynamical equilibrium using the MAMPOSSt algorithm. As a result, we obtained the cluster mass profile M ( r ) and β ( r ). We also estimated M ( r ) from the X-ray data by applying the hydrostatic equilibrium. Results . A comparison of the MAMPOSSt and X-ray-determined M ( r )s allows us to estimate the cluster hydrostatic mass bias, which we find to be consistent with previous findings. The anisotropy parameter β ( r ) indicates tangential orbits for the galaxies near the cluster centre and increasingly radial orbits in the external regions. We checked that our results are not affected by the presence of subclusters and by the choice of the models for M ( r ) and β ( r ). Conclusions . The A267 β ( r ) is very similar to that previously determined for a stack of large ∆ m 12 systems. Our analysis therefore confirms that FGs are characterized by more radial orbits for their member galaxies than the average cluster population. We speculate that this different orbital distribution might be an important element in creating a large ∆ m 12 .

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.004

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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