The optical properties of galaxies in the Ophiuchus cluster
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context.Ophiuchus is one of the most massive clusters known, but due to its low Galactic latitude its optical properties remain poorly known. Aims.We investigate the optical properties of Ophiuchus to obtain clues on the formation epoch of this cluster, and compare them to those of the Coma cluster, which is comparable in mass to Ophiuchus but much more dynamically disturbed. Methods.Based on a deep image of the Ophiuchus cluster in ther′ band obtained at the Canada France Hawaii Telescope with the MegaCam camera, we have applied an iterative process to subtract the contribution of the numerous stars that, due to the low Galactic latitude of the cluster, pollute the image, and have obtained a photometric catalogue of 2818 galaxies fully complete atr′ = 20.5 mag and still 91% complete atr′ = 21.5 mag. We use this catalogue to derive the cluster Galaxy Luminosity Function (GLF) for the overall image and for a region (hereafter the “rectangle” region) covering exactly the same physical size as the region in which the GLF of the Coma cluster was previously studied. We then compute density maps based on an adaptive kernel technique, for different magnitude limits, and define three circular regions covering 0.08, 0.08, and 0.06 deg2, respectively, centred on the cluster (C), on northwest (NW) of the cluster, and southeast (SE) of the cluster, in which we compute the GLFs. Results.The GLF fits are much better when a Gaussian is added to the usual Schechter function, to account for the excess of very bright galaxies. Compared to Coma, Ophiuchus shows a strong excess of bright galaxies. Conclusions.The properties of the two nearby very massive clusters Ophiuchus and Coma are quite comparable, though they seem embedded in different large-scale environments. Our interpretation is that Ophiuchus was built up long ago, as confirmed by its relaxed state (see paper I) while Coma is still in the process of forming.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".