MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998895614 · doi:10.1086/321182

The Evolution of Galaxy Morphology for Galaxies in the Canada-France Redshift Survey

2001· article· en· W1998895614 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsDominion Astrophysical ObservatoryHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRedshiftGalaxyRedshift surveyLuminous infrared galaxyLuminosityElliptical galaxyPeculiar galaxyLenticular galaxyHomogeneous

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The images of 229 galaxies in the Canada-France Redshift Survey have been classified on the DDO system. These observations were combined with previous classifications of galaxies with known redshifts in the Hubble Deep Field. The combined sample provides homogeneous morphological classifications for 425 galaxies of known redshift. The fraction of all galaxies that are of type E, S0, or E/S0 appears to remain approximately constant at ∼17% over the redshift range 0.25 < z < 1.2. Over the same range, the fraction of irregular (Ir) galaxies increases from ∼5% to ∼12%. Part of this increase may be due to mild luminosity evolution of Ir galaxies. The frequency of mergers is found to rise by a factor of 2 or 3 over the redshift range covered by the present survey. These results are in qualitative agreement with those obtained previously by Brinchmann et al. using a coarser galaxy classification system.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.956
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations19
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207