LENTICULAR GALAXIES AND THEIR ENVIRONMENTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is widely believed that lenticular (S0) galaxies were initially spirals from which the gas has been removed by interactions with hot cluster gas, or by ram pressure stripping of cool gas from spirals that are orbiting within rich clusters of galaxies. However, problems with this interpretation are that (1) some lenticulars, such as NGC 3115, are isolated field galaxies rather than cluster members. (2) The distribution of flattening values of S0 galaxies in clusters, in groups, and in the field are statistically indistinguishable. This is surprising because one might have expected most of the progenitors of field S0 galaxies to have been flattened late-type galaxies, whereas lenticulars in clusters are thought to have mostly been derived from bulge-dominated early-type galaxies. (3) It should be hardest for ram pressure to strip massive luminous galaxies with deep potential wells. However, no statistically significant differences are seen between the luminosity distributions of early-type Shapley–Ames galaxies in clusters, groups, and in the field. (4) Finally both ram pressure stripping and evaporation by hot intracluster gas would be most efficient in rich clusters. However, the small number of available data in the Shapley–Ames sample appears to show no statistically significant differences between the relative frequencies of dust-poor S 0 1 and dust-rich S 0 3 galaxies in clusters, groups, and in the field. It is tentatively concluded that ram pressure stripping and heating by intracluster gas, may not be the only evolutionary channels that lead to the formation of lenticular galaxies. It is speculated that gas starvation, or gas ejection by active nuclei, may have played a major role in the formation of a significant fraction of all S0 galaxies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".