Author Topic: Saturday, 15 February, 2014: Publication = Discovery  (Read 7520 times)

JeanTate

  • OotD posters
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2976
    • View Profile
Saturday, 15 February, 2014: Publication = Discovery
« on: February 15, 2014, 01:57:20 am »
Or, if you don't publish what you found, you cannot be said to have discovered it.  :'(

*

That's SDSS J114831.02+124344.5 (DR7 ObjId 588017704003043340; DR8 1237661950251237389). Its photocenter is a different SDSS object, SDSS J114830.66+124347.2 (DR7 ObjId 588017704003043337, DR8 1237661950251237398), and there are several others, all parts of the same galaxy.

*

A simple, far-from-exhaustive search that I did found this galaxy in dozens of posts, referenced by several different ObjIds (or other identifiers), by many different zooites, over many years; the earliest was one by Caro, on August 23, 2007, in the Clusters of Galaxies thread (Caro made no comment, other than to give a DR7 ObjId)1.

However, the post which references this galaxy that I want to focus on, in this OOTD, is perhaps the most recent; this one by c_cld, in the Do It Ourselves Science - The Irregulars Project thread:

Found and posted by zooites:
name objID dr7objid ra dec
F07-4 1237650797293994155 587725076069089459 146.7729 0.9642
F07-12 1237648720153411631 588848898835349545 171.8011 -0.9947
NA10-31 1237661950251237398 588017704003043337 177.1277 12.7299
NA10-33 1237661951339200541 588017705091006505 210.4864 12.3805

in many topics long time ago  :P  ;)

A rather terse post; what's going on?

For example, what's "F07-4 1237650797293994155 587725076069089459 146.7729 0.9642"?

* (source)

Well, earlier the same day, in the same thread, Astronomer KWillett posted this:

Hi everyone,

Looks like there hasn't been activity here for a bit, but I wanted to point out an interesting paper that just appeared on astro-ph. It's from a group of astronomers in Japan (K. Terao et al.) who combed two much smaller surveys of the SDSS for what they call "genuine" irregular galaxies - those without bulges, disks, bars, or any obvious large-scale, symmetrical structure. They found only 33 in their whole sample; using the power of citizen science and Galaxy Zoo, though, I'm confident we could make a significant improvement.

The link to the paper is here: http://arXiv.org/abs/1312.0364

How many of these are galaxies that users found in the original Galaxy Zoo or GZ2? And are there ideas for how we could extend/improve what they've done?

- cheers,
Kyle (science team)

c_cld was responding to that ... and several other 'oldbie' zooites also responded; two of the responses are "ask waveney about his clean 5K list  ;)  ;)" (c_cld), and "Well, that would be my suggestion too : ask waveney ! :-D" (ElisabethB).

Time for an eye-candy break; here's "F07-12 1237648720153411631 588848898835349545 171.8011 -0.9947":

* (source)

All very nice, I can hear you thinking, but what's that got to do with the "Publication = Discovery" in the OOTD title?  ???

If you're an oldbie, you probably already know, and the title of the thread in which Galaxy Zoo Science Team member Kyle Willett posted gives a clue.

The Irregular galaxy project is a zooite run project, blessed by Chris.  What is it about, how can you help?

There are thousands of irregular galaxies out there, some small and insignificant, others brights and dazzling.  We have gathered them here in the forum, but none of the professional astronomers behind the Zoo is currently looking at them.  This is a large group of galaxies, can we find anything about them?   The largest study of irregulars to date looked at 161 of them, we have thousands...

Compact
*
587726033855250518
Sprawling
*
587725471203459169
Star forming clumps
*
588007004192702550
Bar?
*
588017977819332737
Core?
*
587742782605164819
Arms?
*
587737809567744261
On its own
*
588015508215431348
A friend?
*
588017978357383219

[...] Data will be released so anybody and everybody can look at it and try their own analysis.  Some draft data (web page or as a CSV table) is available now, but it does not currently have enough clicks to generate good research on yet, but it does allow people to build up models.   Joining in the analysis or data presentation is another way you can help.  I have integrated the draft data with SDSS (under CasJObs) so advanced searches can look at both what we have found and the original SDSS data on the objects (e.g. colour and size info).

A special mention must be given to Lovethetropics, who is adding thousands of images to our data set.  (Others are also welcome to help find more).

Do this well, and we will have a proper scientific proper paper with Zooite names as authors 1,2,3...  Chris says he is happy to act as supervisor. [...]

That's an extract of the OP of the Do It Ourselves Science - The Irregulars Project thread; let me highlight one para:

Do this well, and we will have a proper scientific proper paper with Zooite names as authors 1,2,3...  Chris says he is happy to act as supervisor.

That post kicked off the project (though it had actually been underway for some time before then). Search ADS for "Proctor, R" (waveney's IRL name), and you'll find dozens of papers; refine your search so you select just waveney and you'll find just two papers2. Neither of which are about the Irregulars project, or even irregulars in general.  :'(

Did waveney et al. discover "genuine irregular galaxies", as defined by Terao+ 2013? If so, how many did they find ... 33?

I don't know; do you?

What other discoveries did Proctor+ make, concerning irregulars? And which of those discoveries are as important - scientifically speaking - as Hanny's Voorwerp or Green Peas?


I don't know; do you?



And the last piece of eye-candy, to close: "NA10-33 1237661951339200541 588017705091006505 210.4864 12.3805":
* (source)

1 It is possible, even likely, that some zooite posted it earlier; as I said, my search was far from exhaustive.

2 Darg D., et al., 2009, "Galaxy Zoo: the fraction of merging galaxies in the SDSS and their morphologies", MNRAS, 401, 1043. (available here: astro-ph/ADS): "R. Proctor" is an et al., with the affiliation "Waveney Consulting/Waveney Web Services"
Keel, William C. et al., 2012, "The Galaxy Zoo survey for giant AGN-ionized clouds: past and present black hole accretion events", MNRAS, 420, Issue 1, pp. 878-900 (ADS): "Proctor, Richard", "Waveney Consulting, Wimborne, Dorset"
(source)

* ETA: I learned from mlpeck's post, downthread, that the DR7 images are not displaying for at least some of you. I have removed them from this, the OP, replaced them with the corresponding DR10 ones, and pasted the original DR7 ones in a downthread post (here).
« Last Edit: February 17, 2014, 02:43:40 am by JeanTate »

JeanTate

  • OotD posters
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2976
    • View Profile
Re: Saturday, 15 February, 2014: Publication = Discovery
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2014, 10:30:12 am »
Again, not wanting to clutter the OP overly much, but there's a rather important 'add-on' ... and zooite PeterD's post in that same Do It Ourselves Science - The Irregulars Project thread serves as a good introduction:

There are - or were- letters that several of us wrote in "Letters" but they seem to have stopped working properly, including stuff on BBOS/caterpillars and I know that there are others keen to put things up.

I think that we ought to get that system working again.

Letters?  ???

Quote from: JeanTate (28 APRIL 2013)
A Letter about Letters

Summary

Letters is a strange beast, neither fish nor fowl. While it's still in beta, who cares? Once it becomes public, zooites, that's who! I briefly review its public history and current content, before discussing some issues which I think will need to be addressed before Letters goes alpha.

1. Introduction

What is Letters?



Under the heading "Welcome to Letters", the Homepage of Letters describes itself like this: "Letters is a new tool from Zooniverse for communicating your research results to the wider community."

In late April, 2013 - when I was preparing the Letter - there was no content in the Letters tab ABOUT. However, the tabs ZOONIVERSE and ABOUT (on the same row as the ZOONIVERSE tab) both had content, and the PROJECTS tab produced a drop-down menu, with a list of current Zooniverse projects. There is no LETTERS tab in any of the top-level Zooniverse webpages, and no mention of Letters anywhere within that site.

In this short Letter, I will take a brief look at where Letters came from, as far as was known publicly at the time I wrote this; that's Section 2. In Section 3, I summarize what's currently published. Then, in Section 4, I will write some impressions I have, and about some of the issues I think Letters faces (and should address) if it is going to go public.

2. Public History

Letters was developed in the second half of 2011 (that's what Arfon Smith told me, in a private communication), and made known to members of two Zooniverse projects, Planet Hunters (PH) and Galaxy Zoo (GZ), via a post in the PH Talk forum by mschwamb, some time in May, 2012 ("11 months ago"; Talk's date/timestamps are not very precise) and one by zookeeperKevin in the GZ forum, on 17 May, 2012. It was subsequently briefly mentioned, and commented on, in at least those two Zooniverse projects.

Here's how mschwamb characterized Letters:
Quote
... the Zooniverse is developing new tools for all the projects to further help promote and encourage science investigations from our volunteers. One new tool being built by the Zooniverse team is Letters which is still in beta and I've been slowly asking for people to contribute to. It's designed to be a supplement for Talk, where you can take the research you're doing or the guide you've started to assemble and have a place to write a long summary and description of it that you can't do with the Talk side discussions or message boards. If you have guides or a tool you developed or want to share your investigation (like the CVs, etc) please do write a letter (it's still in Beta right now, but i've already gotten great feedback on the PH Letters already there from other members of the Zooniverse team), I encourage you to think about writing a Letter. I think Letters wil be a great feature that will add to the Planet Hunters community experience.

And zookeeperKevin:

Quote
Dear Peas Corps,

We're beta testing a new Zooniverse feature called Letters which will let the Zooites write up their projects like a science paper. We're calling it Letters and we hope it's going to be essentially the journal for citizen scientists. We're beta testing it at the moment, and we're also hoping to put in some content so that people can get a sense of what Letters can be like.


At the time of writing this Letter, Letters was not accessible to search engines such as Google. However, in addition to the link in PH Talk, there is a live link to Introducing AKO (the second Letter, see below) on the webpage AKO: The Amateur Kepler Observatory, as "My white paper on AKO."

3. Content

There are nine published Letters; in order of publication (with the associated Zooniverse project in brackets):

Introducing AKO, by troyw, dated 14 MAY 2012 (PH)

Introducing AKO, by troyw, dated 14 MAY 2012 (PH)

Blazars and their neighbors, by Yinchuan Yu, dated 16 MAY 2012 (GZ)

A Brief Overview of PyKE & Kepler Target Pixel Files, by nighthawk_black, dated 17 MAY 2012 (PH)

Catalog of z>0.3, very large spiral galaxies in SDSS - I: Introduction, by Jean Tate, dated 20 MAY 2012 (GZ)

A Spatial SDSS Explorer, by laihro, dated 09 JUNE 2012 (GZ)

Discovery of Four Giant, Distant Spirals, by Jean Tate, dated 29 JUNE 2012 (GZ)

The Hyper-Velocity Star Project: Zooites Go Off On A Tangent With HVS, by Lovethetropics, dated 10 OCTOBER 2012 (GZ)

Six SDSS 0.30 < z < 0.32 Huds (of the Eos Kind), by Jean Tate, dated 29 NOVEMBER 2012 (GZ)

In terms of style and structure, these nine cover quite a range. Three closely follow the structure of papers published in peer-reviewed astronomy journals, and use language similarly; two somewhat resemble explanatory manuals; one is like a cross between a scientific paper and an explanatory manual, both in style and structure; one has an informal style and quite loose structure; and two are obviously failed attempts at using an unfamiliar tool (and would almost certainly be deleted by the authors if they were able to).

Letters seems to use Markdown, from Daring Fireball (or something similar) to convert text to some flavor of HTML. It does not support LaTeX (or similar), and neither sub-scripts nor super-scripts. Fonts and font size options are extremely limited.

4. Impressions and Issues

In designing Letters, what did the Zooniverse team have in mind?

Did they expect - or hope - that zooites (the name the citizen scientists/members of Zooniverse projects call themselves) would spontaneously write documents that would seem quite at home in the pages of MNRAS (Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, a leading astronomy journal)? Or that zooites would use it as a vehicle for publishing reference material/user guides to tools related to one Zooniverse project or another that they'd independently developed? Or as a way to more formally record various self-inspired, independent, informal or semi-formal research they'd undertaken?

From the way mschwamb and zookeeperKevin characterized Letters (see Section 2), it would seem "all of the above" (sans the "spontaneously" part)!

Could a Letter be considered on a par with a paper in MNRAS?

Certainly, with a great deal of effort, a zooite could write a Letter with content that could pass for something from MNRAS; however, the limitations on Letters' formatting would require the zooite to be extremely creative, or to write about something where even sub- and super-scripts could be avoided.

More pertinent is that there is no way a draft Letter can be reviewed - whether by peers, or professional astronomers, or anyone - before being published. Actually, that's not strictly true; zooite gumbosea developed a 'sandbox' method by which a draft Letter can be reviewed ... trouble is, it's rather cumbersome, and likely unworkable for a public Letters.

Even if a robust, easy-to-use review process (or capability) were to be developed, and even if Letters were to support LaTeX (or similar), how could Letters be accepted by the community of professional astronomers (presumably part of "the wider community"), and individual Letters cited in the same way as papers in MNRAS are, without imposing some rather strict guidelines - rules even - on both the format and content? Perhaps by creating some kind of vetting, or approval, process, resulting in two tiers of Letters (those "approved for inclusion in ADS", for example, and all others)?

If you're a Letters author, who is your audience?

On the one hand, if you - as zooite author - would like your original, independent, Zooniverse-based, research to be recognized in the same way authors of MNRAS papers' research is recognized, you really have no choice but to write in a style that regular readers of MNRAS will accept ... formal, stiff, dense, full of equations and strange symbols, citations left and right, ... If you write like that, how many of your fellow zooites will even read your Letter, much less understand it?

On the other hand, if you write for your fellow zooites, in a style which makes them feel at ease, and doesn't assume they instantly know what a 'deVaucouleurs profile' is (though it's probably OK to assume they are familiar with 'redshift'), who among the MNRAS audience would even read your Letter, much less cite it (GZ and PH Science Team members excepted, of course)?

On the third hand, are you brave enough to try to write a Letter which successfully addresses both audiences (and many others besides)?

And who are the zooite authors anyway?

In creating an identity under which to participate in Zooniverse projects, you have few limitations. The name ('handle', or 'avatar') need have no connection with your IRL (in real life) name. For example, I could have chosen 'J2359-1056' (a short form for the SDSS name of one of my fave galaxies (see Tate 2012), or even 爱星系! Actually, no I couldn't; but I could transliterate it, as 'Aixingxi' (or similar), and that would be OK (in case you're wondering, it's written in simplified Chinese, and means something like 'loves galaxies').

If you need to refer to something another zooite wrote, in a forum or a Talk for example, you can of course use their zooite name. Or you could contact them and ask for their IRL name (better make sure you check that they're OK with you using that name!) Or you could use other information available publicly, within the Zooniverse, to make an association; for example zooite 'Lovethetropics' appeared in the Galaxy Zoo blog, under the name Aida Bergés (Ella es una Astrónoma: Aida Bergés).

When zooites have been listed as authors of Zooniverse-related papers published in peer-reviewed journals such as MNRAS, it seems their IRL names have been used. For example, in Keel et al. 2013 - "Keel, W. C. et al. 2013, PASP, 125, 2" to give it its IJL (in journal life) name - zooite Half65 is the author Massimo Mezzoprete. However, the authors of this PASP paper seem quite OK with using only zooite names, as exemplified by this quote from near the end:

Quote
This work would not have been possible without the contributions of citizen scientists as part of the Galaxy Zoo project. We particularly wish to thank the contributors to the "overlapping galaxies" forum thread whose candidates underlie the major part of this work. Where supplied, we have used a full name, and have otherwise acknowledged contributions by Galaxy Zoo username in a listing at http://data.galaxyzoo.org/overlaps.html.

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, without the inspired and talented Zooniverse team, this Letter would not exist; many thanks.

Thanks too to zookeeperKevin for his GZ forum post, which is how I learned of Letters.

Then to zooite gumbosea, who has helped me a great deal over the recent years with matters technical; in particular it was gumbosea who worked out the 'sandbox technique' for creating draft Letters, and for the method by which they (drafts) could be reviewed by others, in almost complete fidelity.

And thanks to zooite djj for unknowingly providing the inspiration for writing this Letter, along with several of the ideas that have gone into it.

mlpeck

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Saturday, 15 February, 2014: Publication = Discovery
« Reply #2 on: February 16, 2014, 06:44:13 pm »
Hi Jean:

All I'm seeing in the images you posted are error messages. Perhaps that's why you've had no responses so far.

Maybe it's time to let DR7 go. The public release is after all up to DR10 and the pictures are prettier too.

NGC3314

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1590
    • View Profile
Re: Saturday, 15 February, 2014: Publication = Discovery
« Reply #3 on: February 16, 2014, 11:44:07 pm »
Maybe it's time to let DR7 go. The public release is after all up to DR10 and the pictures are prettier too.

On that matter - does anyone know of a better way to translate from DR7 to DR10 ObjIDs than pasting coordinates into the DR10 each box? The mapping is not one-to-one, since some sky areas were omitted from the later releases around large bright galaxies (for example), and even subtle changes in the object-identification algorithms will give different lists of objects for complex galaxies. I kept expecting a button to allow lookup in a later data release (as in the latest Explorer page), but no luck yet.

Hmmm - now that I think of it, I'll try poking via the SDSS Twitter account, which has gotten responses in the past.

EDIT: SDSS response was "the table PhotoObjDR7 in Casjobs lists both the DR7 and DR8 objid for all objects matched between the two." That probably means that it's still faster to just transfer the coordinates for a few objects at a time.
« Last Edit: February 17, 2014, 01:49:27 pm by NGC3314 »

JeanTate

  • OotD posters
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2976
    • View Profile
Re: Saturday, 15 February, 2014: Publication = Discovery
« Reply #4 on: February 17, 2014, 02:17:47 am »
Hi Jean:

All I'm seeing in the images you posted are error messages. Perhaps that's why you've had no responses so far.

Maybe it's time to let DR7 go. The public release is after all up to DR10 and the pictures are prettier too.

Thanks for letting me know ... to me, all 13 (DR7) images in the OP display correctly.  ::)  :P

I'll replace I have replaced them with DR10 ones, and copy the DR7 images here, into this post, so there's a record of what I originally wrote.



That's SDSS J114831.02+124344.5 (DR7 ObjId 588017704003043340; DR8 1237661950251237389). Its photocenter is a different SDSS object, SDSS J114830.66+124347.2 (DR7 ObjId 588017704003043337, DR8 1237661950251237398), and there are several others, all parts of the same galaxy.



For example, what's "F07-4 1237650797293994155 587725076069089459 146.7729 0.9642"?

(source)

Time for an eye-candy break; here's "F07-12 1237648720153411631 588848898835349545 171.8011 -0.9947":

(source)

The Irregular galaxy project is a zooite run project, blessed by Chris.  What is it about, how can you help?

There are thousands of irregular galaxies out there, some small and insignificant, others brights and dazzling.  We have gathered them here in the forum, but none of the professional astronomers behind the Zoo is currently looking at them.  This is a large group of galaxies, can we find anything about them?   The largest study of irregulars to date looked at 161 of them, we have thousands...

Compact

587726033855250518
Sprawling

587725471203459169
Star forming clumps

588007004192702550
Bar?

588017977819332737
Core?

587742782605164819
Arms?

587737809567744261
On its own

588015508215431348
A friend?

588017978357383219

"NA10-33 1237661951339200541 588017705091006505 210.4864 12.3805":
(source)
« Last Edit: February 17, 2014, 02:44:44 am by JeanTate »

PeterD

  • OotD posters
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
    • View Profile
Re: Saturday, 15 February, 2014: Publication = Discovery
« Reply #5 on: February 17, 2014, 01:26:45 pm »
A couple of notes - AND A PROPOSAL:

(i) The Letters list that JT has posted is incomplete. The number that was posted by autumn last year which is when I was last able to access it, looks to have been at least half as many again. There are clearly a number of people on the list who would like to help further with the research and who by background and/or inclination could take things forward ... and I can only talk about the GZ projects.

Free, committed labour doesn't require proposal submission to research councils ;-) , just mutual agreement, access to existing resources (eg the fora, the GZ databases) and it makes it possible to get started quickly. The extension of GZ to deploying and using such volunteers to work on new projects is surely part of the Zoo ethos - and more broadly part of the Citizen Science Foundation's aims.

(ii) Were the GIGs  of the Terao et al. - or very similar objects - discovered here first? Quite possibly. Could we enlarge the catalogue. I think, yes. A quick look at the Irregulars thread, the Blue Caterpillars (BBOs) thread and a few OoTDs shows that there are a lot of similarities between objects posted there and  the "GIGs". HOWEVER it would appear that not all irregulars are GIGs it would appear.

I have no wish to start arguments about priority. The fact that these many irregulars of these and possibly related types,  which in our case come from the GZ1 - GZH lists, were identified by zooites early on reflects the issues of communication between the average committed zooite and the science team, which things like Letters were designed to address.


I suggest that we put together an project to trawl through the existing threads (Irregulars, Caterpillars, OoTDs etc etc ) and identify candidates and then put together a list of objects from the collected previous work. We can deploy DS 10 - or whatever - to get pretty pictures and with its help and NEDs create a catalogue and do as much as possible towards identifying common characteristics, distributions etc etc.

I am of course more than happy to help.  Do people think that this is a runner? If you do then I would suggest that we get mlpeck, KWillett, we should also try to get waveney involved and hopefully persuade one or both of ZKKevin or ZKChris to provide a sanity check.

mlpeck

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Saturday, 15 February, 2014: Publication = Discovery
« Reply #6 on: February 18, 2014, 02:52:43 pm »
I suggest that we put together an project to trawl through the existing threads (Irregulars, Caterpillars, OoTDs etc etc ) and identify candidates and then put together a list of objects from the collected previous work. We can deploy DS 10 - or whatever - to get pretty pictures and with its help and NEDs create a catalogue and do as much as possible towards identifying common characteristics, distributions etc etc.

I am of course more than happy to help.  Do people think that this is a runner? If you do then I would suggest that we get mlpeck, KWillett, we should also try to get waveney involved and hopefully persuade one or both of ZKKevin or ZKChris to provide a sanity check.

Me? I'm just a newbie here and I contributed nothing at all to the irregulars project. I would be interested in getting involved if there are clear science goals beyond putting together a catalog.

One suggestion: Deidre Hunter of Lowell Observatory has made a career out of the study of dwarf, mostly irregular, galaxies, and part of her job that she apparently takes seriously is outreach. She might have ideas about science goals that citizen scientists could help achieve.

JeanTate

  • OotD posters
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2976
    • View Profile
Re: Saturday, 15 February, 2014: Publication = Discovery
« Reply #7 on: February 18, 2014, 05:04:14 pm »
A couple of notes - AND A PROPOSAL:

(i) The Letters list that JT has posted is incomplete. The number that was posted by autumn last year which is when I was last able to access it, looks to have been at least half as many again.

They are, as of today (and in the same format):

Curious Pattern in Longo's 2011 Net Handedness Asymmetries (in SDSS Galaxies), by Jean Tate, dated 28 APRIL 2013 (GZ)

Physical Properties of the First Four HUDS, by Jean Tate, dated 20 MAY 2013 (GZ)

Blue Caterpillars'/BBOs - a separate class of irregulars? 1: Survey description and Morphology, by Peter Dzwig, dated 21 MAY 2013 (GZ)

Collaborative Gravitational Lens Modelling using SpaghettiLens - A SpaceWarps Project. by Capella05, dated 10 JANUARY 2014 (SW)

Quote
There are clearly a number of people on the list who would like to help further with the research and who by background and/or inclination could take things forward ... and I can only talk about the GZ projects.

Free, committed labour doesn't require proposal submission to research councils ;-) , just mutual agreement, access to existing resources (eg the fora, the GZ databases) and it makes it possible to get started quickly. The extension of GZ to deploying and using such volunteers to work on new projects is surely part of the Zoo ethos - and more broadly part of the Citizen Science Foundation's aims.

(ii) Were the GIGs  of the Terao et al. - or very similar objects - discovered here first? Quite possibly. Could we enlarge the catalogue. I think, yes. A quick look at the Irregulars thread, the Blue Caterpillars (BBOs) thread and a few OoTDs shows that there are a lot of similarities between objects posted there and  the "GIGs". HOWEVER it would appear that not all irregulars are GIGs it would appear.

I have no wish to start arguments about priority.

Quite some time ago - 2+ years? - I started to look into "discovery" as the term might apply to objects in SDSS DR7, with particular attention to this, the GZ forum (Talk wasn't invented then). It quickly became apparent to me that there are a great many facets to "discovery", and that it'd be easy to write a very lengthy book on the topic!  :P For things like GRBs, comets, and supernovae there are well-oiled systems in place; for things like voorwerpjes, LBV->SN/recoilingSMBH, Green Peas, and GIGs, not so much.

However, among professional astronomers it would seem that recognition of the existence of a new class of (unusual) objects (non-transient ones!) becomes established only upon publication in a relevant peer-reviewed journal, or in a published presentation at a conference of community members.

In this regard, zooites were fortunate that zkKevin was able to assign a (grad?) student to follow-up with the collective work done in this forum on Green Peas1, but waveney et al. unfortunate that no paper ever came from their research.

Quote
The fact that these many irregulars of these and possibly related types,  which in our case come from the GZ1 - GZH lists, were identified by zooites early on reflects the issues of communication between the average committed zooite and the science team, which things like Letters were designed to address.

Clearly, that is true.

However, Christian+ 2012, "Citizen Science: Contributions to Astronomy Research", may be read as saying that it is solely through Talk that the science team expects discoveries to be made, and that it is the science team who will publish them (I thank zutopian, again, for bringing this to our attention):

Quote from: Christian+ 2012
Serendipity. A second key advantage of human classification is that it preserves the opportunity for serendipitous discovery.
[...]
One of many methods for measuring the success of citizen science in terms of research productivity is the suite of case studies of serendipitous discoveries that came about due to the activities of the volunteers, mentioned above.
[...]
Much of the serendipitous science from Galaxy Zoo came from a basic forum, and a new ‘Talk’ tool that can be more closely integrated with the process of classification itself has been developed and released.The ultimate goal of such tools should be to bring questions and interesting discoveries to the scientists’ attention only when expert input is necessary, reducing the time needed for appropriate mentoring while still ensuring nothing gets lost.

It is surely too simplistic to say that GZ Talk has failed the explicitly stated goal; however, it seems odd that there is apparently no public discussion of this (that I have been able to find).

Quote
I suggest that we put together an project to trawl through the existing threads (Irregulars, Caterpillars, OoTDs etc etc ) and identify candidates and then put together a list of objects from the collected previous work. We can deploy DS 10 - or whatever - to get pretty pictures and with its help and NEDs create a catalogue and do as much as possible towards identifying common characteristics, distributions etc etc.

Pretty much what was done for Green Peas!  8) :)

As the above quote makes clear, that is precisely what Talk was supposed to make it easy for us to do. I don't know about you, but I can't see how you could - realistically - do that, in Talk ... for starters, how would you find the AGZ IDs for all the irregulars of interest, that are posted here in the GZ forum (you need AGZ identifiers in order to create a Collection in Talk)? On the other hand, the collecting is fairly straight-forward using this forum.

The tool which helped make Green Peas such a success - and which would have done the same for the Irregulars Project - was waveney's 'mini-classification' system. As the much more robust Zooniverse framework is open source, in principle it should be quite straight-forward to replicate what waveney created. In practice, I don't think there are any ordinary zooites with the required IT skills (at least, none who'd want to work on irregulars).  :'(

Quote
I am of course more than happy to help.  Do people think that this is a runner? If you do then I would suggest that we get mlpeck, KWillett, we should also try to get waveney involved and hopefully persuade one or both of ZKKevin or ZKChris to provide a sanity check.

... try to get waveney involved ... d'accord.  :D

1 Cardamone+ 2009 Although in this case no ordinary zooite ever became a co-author

mlpeck

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Saturday, 15 February, 2014: Publication = Discovery
« Reply #8 on: February 18, 2014, 05:20:28 pm »
Jean:

After looking through Terao et al.'s "Genuine Irregular Galaxy" list (thanks c_cld for pasting the list of positions!) I noticed a couple things:

The galaxy you led off your OOTD post is a confirmed member of Hickson Compact Group (HCG) 59, and therefore does not meet their main criterion for a "GIG". All you have to do is zoom out a bit to see that it's a group member!



The very first object on their list that they label F07-1 is obviously interacting with the galaxy to its NW, and the trail of clumps to the S of the main body of the galaxy has 3 BOSS targets, all with the same redshift. Again, all you have to do is zoom out a a bit! Not a "GIG."



I found at least 3 galaxies on their list that appeared to be interacting and may post them if I have time to revisit the image list tool.

zutopian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
  • REOPEN this forum!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Saturday, 15 February, 2014: Publication = Discovery
« Reply #9 on: February 18, 2014, 06:50:41 pm »
Jean:

After looking through Terao et al.'s "Genuine Irregular Galaxy" list (thanks c_cld for pasting the list of positions!) I noticed a couple things:

The galaxy you led off your OOTD post is a confirmed member of Hickson Compact Group (HCG) 59, and therefore does not meet their main criterion for a "GIG". All you have to do is zoom out a bit to see that it's a group member!



(...)


That galaxy shows up in following paper.: On page 25:

Massive Clumps in Local Galaxies: Comparisons with High-Redshift Clumps
Bruce G. Elmegreen, Debra Meloy Elmegreen, Jorge Sanchez Almeida, Casiana Munoz-Tunon, Janosz Dewberry, Joseph Putko, Yaron Teich, Mark Popinchalk
(Submitted on 1 Aug 2013)
http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0306

The author is Elmegreen. KWillett had mentioned another paper of that author in a reply to following "Object of the Day".:

Thursday July 12 2012; Meet BigFoot
http://www.galaxyzooforum.org/index.php?topic=280269.msg610684#msg610684

zutopian

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2852
  • REOPEN this forum!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Saturday, 15 February, 2014: Publication = Discovery
« Reply #10 on: February 18, 2014, 08:05:12 pm »
(...)
I found at least 3 galaxies on their list that appeared to be interacting and may post them if I have time to revisit the image list tool.

On page 14 of the Terao et al paper there is given following.:

B. COMMENTS ON THE GIGS WITH APPARENT COMPANION
Quote
Here we give comments on the following four GIGs with apparent companion in their images shown in Figure 6:
F07-22, F07-23, NA10-23, and NA10-29.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1312.0364

PeterD

  • OotD posters
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
    • View Profile
Re: Saturday, 15 February, 2014: Publication = Discovery
« Reply #11 on: February 18, 2014, 09:37:49 pm »
Jean:

After looking through Terao et al.'s "Genuine Irregular Galaxy" list (thanks c_cld for pasting the list of positions!) I noticed a couple things:

....



I found at least 3 galaxies on their list that appeared to be interacting and may post them if I have time to revisit the image list tool.

Aare you able to estimate the distance between the string and the "GIG" on this one?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2014, 09:41:42 pm by PeterD »

PeterD

  • OotD posters
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 423
    • View Profile
Re: Saturday, 15 February, 2014: Publication = Discovery
« Reply #12 on: February 18, 2014, 09:49:39 pm »
I suggest that we put together an project to trawl through the existing threads (Irregulars, Caterpillars, OoTDs etc etc ) and identify candidates and then put together a list of objects from the collected previous work. We can deploy DS 10 - or whatever - to get pretty pictures and with its help and NEDs create a catalogue and do as much as possible towards identifying common characteristics, distributions etc etc.

I am of course more than happy to help.  Do people think that this is a runner? If you do then I would suggest that we get mlpeck, KWillett, we should also try to get waveney involved and hopefully persuade one or both of ZKKevin or ZKChris to provide a sanity check.

Me? I'm just a newbie here and I contributed nothing at all to the irregulars project. I would be interested in getting involved if there are clear science goals beyond putting together a catalog.


Identifying how many there are of any class of object is the difference between establishing whether something is a "one-off" oddity or may perhaps be part of a group worthy of more serious study. Is it possible for zooites to take it further? Yes I think it is, but some things need the intervention/guidance of a team member.

"I didn't contribute" isn't really of importance here. A fresh pair of hands/eyes is always welcome, pro or not. :)

c_cld

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4948
  • "In some fields, I am at home; in others we are fellow tourists" (Bill )
    • View Profile
Re: Saturday, 15 February, 2014: Publication = Discovery
« Reply #13 on: February 19, 2014, 02:24:49 pm »
Maybe it's time to let DR7 go. The public release is after all up to DR10 and the pictures are prettier too.

On that matter - does anyone know of a better way to translate from DR7 to DR10 ObjIDs than pasting coordinates into the DR10 each box? The mapping is not one-to-one, since some sky areas were omitted from the later releases around large bright galaxies (for example), and even subtle changes in the object-identification algorithms will give different lists of objects for complex galaxies. I kept expecting a button to allow lookup in a later data release (as in the latest Explorer page), but no luck yet.

Hmmm - now that I think of it, I'll try poking via the SDSS Twitter account, which has gotten responses in the past.

EDIT: SDSS response was "the table PhotoObjDR7 in Casjobs lists both the DR7 and DR8 objid for all objects matched between the two." That probably means that it's still faster to just transfer the coordinates for a few objects at a time.

You also have the SDSS CrossID for DR10 in which you could have different search types
example
Search type
   Images
Search scope
  • Nearest Object
  • Nearest Primary Object
  • All Nearby Primary Objects
  • All Nearby Objects

by RA, dec

The "upload type" run-rerun-camcol-field-obj is not very useful because the rerun change between DR6-7 and DR8-9-10 but it's important to check the run camcol field on the "explore" pages to see any change.

Hopes this helps more quickly than "cas jobs" as you have links already in place for "explore".




mlpeck

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 48
    • View Profile
Re: Saturday, 15 February, 2014: Publication = Discovery
« Reply #14 on: February 19, 2014, 03:30:00 pm »
Quote
Aare you able to estimate the distance between the string and the "GIG" on this one?

If the redshift gives the distance (a bit of a stretch since z = .005) the clumps with spectra in the tail are about 7-9 kpc. from the center of the galaxy. The two galaxies have a transverse separation of about 8.4 kpc.

This is UGC 5205 by the way. Its neighbor to the NW is CGCG 007-025. They both have many aliases, and are relatively well studied.

According to NED the RC3 classification is SBm pec?, which I think translates to Magellanic spiral, maybe peculiar.