Galaxy Merger Candidates in High-redshift Cluster Environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We compile a sample of spectroscopically and photometrically selected cluster galaxies from four high-redshift galaxy clusters ( ) from the Spitzer Adaptation of the Red-Sequence Cluster Survey (SpARCS), and a comparison field sample selected from the UKIDSS Deep Survey. Using near-infrared imaging from the Hubble Space Telescope, we classify potential mergers involving massive ( ) cluster members by eye, based on morphological properties such as tidal distortions, double nuclei, and projected near neighbors within 20 kpc. With a catalog of 23 spectroscopic and 32 photometric massive cluster members across the four clusters and 65 spectroscopic and 26 photometric comparable field galaxies, we find that after taking into account contamination from interlopers, of the cluster members are involved in potential mergers, compared to of the field galaxies. We see no evidence of merger enhancement in the central cluster environment with respect to the field, suggesting that galaxy–galaxy merging is not a stronger source of galaxy evolution in cluster environments compared to the field at these redshifts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".