The OTELO survey as a morphological probe. Last ten Gyr of galaxy evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. The morphology of galaxies provide us with a unique tool for relating and understanding other physical properties and their changes over the course of cosmic time. It is only recently that we have been afforded access to a wealth of data for an unprecedented number galaxies thanks to large and deep surveys. Aims. We present the morphological catalogue of the OTELO survey galaxies detected with the Hubble Space Telescope (HST)-ACS F814W images. We explore various methods applied in previous works to separate early-type (ET) and late-type (LT) galaxies classified via spectral energy distribution (SED) fittings using galaxy templates. Together with this article, we are releasing a catalogue containing the main morphological parameters in the F606W and F814W bands derived for more than 8000 sources. Methods. The morphological analysis is based on the single-Sérsic profile fit. We used the GALAPAGOS2 software to provide multi-wavelength morphological parameters fitted simultaneously in two HST-ACS bands. The GALAPAGOS2 software detects, prepares guess values for GALFIT-M, and provides the best-fitting single-Sérsic model in both bands for each source. Stellar masses were estimated using synthetic rest-frame magnitudes recovered from SED fittings of galaxy templates. The morphological catalogue is complemented with concentration indexes from a separate SExtractor dual, high dynamical range mode. Results. A total of 8812 sources were successfully fitted with single-Sérsic profiles. The analysis of a carefully selected sample of ∼3000 sources up to zphot = 2 is presented in this work, of which 873 sources were not detected in previous studies. We found no statistical evidence for the evolution of the low-mass end of mass–size relation for ET and LT since z = 2. Furthermore, we found a good agreement for the median size evolution for ET and LT galaxies, for a given stellar mass, with the data from the literature. Compared to previous works on faint field galaxies, we found similarities regarding their rest-frame colours as well as the Sérsic and concentration indices.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".