MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3019840641

Automatic Approach to Morphological Classification of Galaxies with Analysis of Galaxy Populations in Clusters

2018· article· en· W3019840641 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOptics and Image Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalaxySupercluster (genetic)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceAstrophysicsPattern recognition (psychology)PhysicsBiologyPhylogeneticsGenetics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The classification of galaxies based on their morphology is a field in astrophysics that aims to understand galaxy formation and evolution based on their physical differences. Whether structural differences are due to internal factors or a result of local environment, the dominate mechanism that determines galaxy type needs to be robustly quantified in order to have a thorough grasp of the origin of the different types of galaxies. The main subject of my Ph.D. dissertation is to explore the use of computers to automatically classify and analyze large numbers of galaxies according to their morphology, and to analyze sub-samples of galaxies selected by type to understand galaxy formation in various environments. I have developed a computer code to classify galaxies by measuring five parameters from their images in FITS format. The code was trained and tested using visually classified SDSS galaxies from Galaxy Zoo and the EFIGI data set. I apply my morphology software to numerous galaxies from diverse data sets. Among the data analyzed are the 15 Abell galaxy clusters (0.03 < z < 0.184) from Rude et al. 2017 (in preparation), which were observed by the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope. Additionally, I studied 57 galaxy clusters from Barkhouse et al. (2007), 77 clusters from the WINGS survey (Fasano et al. 2006), and the six Hubble Space Telescope (HST) Frontier Field galaxy clusters. The high resolution of HST allows me to compare distant clusters with those nearby to look for evolutionary changes in the galaxy cluster population. I use the results from the software to examine the properties (e.g. luminosity functions, radial dependencies, star formation rates) of selected galaxies. Due to the large amount of data that will be available from wide-area surveys in the future, the use of computer software to classify and analyze the morphology of galaxies will be extremely important in terms of efficiency. This research aims to contribute to the solution of this problem.

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 score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.191 · 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