MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Strong size evolution of the most massive galaxies since <i>z</i> ∼ 2

2007· article· en· W2139105939 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsGalaxyAstrophysicsGalaxy formation and evolutionAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using the combined capabilities of the large near-infrared Palomar/DEEP-2 survey, and the superb resolution of the Advanced Camera for Surveys HST camera, we explore the size evolution of 831 very massive galaxies (M⋆≥ 1011h−270 M⊙) since z∼ 2. We split our sample according to their light concentration using the Sérsic index n. At a given stellar mass, both low (n &amp;lt; 2.5) and high (n &amp;gt; 2.5) concentrated objects were much smaller in the past than their local massive counterparts. This evolution is particularly strong for the highly concentrated (spheroid like) objects. At z∼ 1.5, massive spheroid-like objects were a factor of 4 (±0.4) smaller (i.e. almost two orders of magnitudes denser) than those we see today. These small sized, high-mass galaxies do not exist in the nearby Universe, suggesting that this population merged with other galaxies over several billion years to form the largest galaxies we see today.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.186 · 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