Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an analysis of the orbital properties of nine intermediate-redshift clusters of the Canadian Network for Observational Cosmology (CNOC1) survey and compare them to a control sample of 12 nearby clusters. Similar to the nearby elliptical galaxies, the bulge-dominated galaxies in clusters at redshifts ~0.1-0.4 present orbits that are more eccentric than those of disk-dominated galaxies. However, the orbital segregation is less significant than that found for elliptical and spiral galaxies in nearby clusters. The strongest orbital segregation is found when galaxies are separated by colors [red galaxies with colors in the rest frame ( U - V ) 0 > 1.4, blue galaxies with ( U - V ) 0 ≤ 1.4]. Therefore, the segregation we find seems to modify the star formation activity more efficiently than the internal shape of the galaxies. When we compare the orbits of early-type galaxies at intermediate redshift with those for z = 0, they seem to develop significant changes, becoming much more eccentric. A different behavior is observed in the late-type galaxies, which present no significant evolution in their orbit shapes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".