LUMINOSITIES OF BARRED AND UNBARRED S0 GALAXIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lenticular galaxies with M B < −21.5 are almost exclusively unbarred, whereas both barred and unbarred objects occur at fainter luminosity levels. This effect is observed both for objects classified in blue light, and for those that were classified in the infrared. This result suggests that the most luminous (massive) S0 galaxies find it difficult to form bars. As a result, the mean luminosity of unbarred lenticular galaxies in both B and IR light is observed to be ∼0.4 mag brighter than that of barred lenticulars. A small contribution to the observed luminosity difference that is found between SA0 and SB0 galaxies may also be due to the fact that there is an asymmetry between the effects of small classification errors on SA0 and SB0 galaxies. An elliptical (E) galaxy might be misclassified as a lenticular (S0) or an S0 as an E. However, an E will never be misclassified as an SB0, nor will an SB0 ever be called an E. This asymmetry is important because E galaxies are typically twice as luminous as S0 galaxies. The present results suggest that the evolution of luminous lenticular galaxies may be closely linked to that of elliptical galaxies, whereas fainter lenticulars might be more closely associated with ram-pressure stripped spiral galaxies. Finally, it is pointed out that fine details of the galaxy formation process might account for some of the differences between the classifications of the same galaxy by individual competent morphologists.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".