MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415047181 · doi:10.3390/galaxies13050115

Evolution of Size, Mass, and Density of Galaxies Since Cosmic Dawn

2025· article· en· W4415047181 on OpenAlexaff
Rajendra P. Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueGalaxies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalaxyLuminosityUniverseGalaxy formation and evolutionCosmic microwave backgroundSupernovaAge of the universeCOSMIC cancer database

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The formation and evolution of galaxies and other astrophysical objects have become of great interest, especially since the launch of the James Webb Space Telescope in 2021. The mass, size, and density of objects in the early universe appear to be drastically different from those predicted by the standard cosmology—the ΛCDM model. This work shows that the mass–size–density evolution is not surprising when we use the CCC+TL cosmology, which is based on the concepts of covarying coupling constants in an expanding universe and the tired light effect contributing to the observed redshift. This model is consistent with supernovae Pantheon+ data, the angular size of the cosmic dawn galaxies, BAO, CMB sound horizon, galaxy formation time scales, time dilation, galaxy rotation curves, etc., and does not have the coincidence problem. The effective radii re of the objects are larger in the new model by re∝1+z0.93. Thus, the object size evolution in different studies, estimated as re∝1+zs with s=−1.0 ± 0.3, is modified to re∝1+zs+0.93, the dynamical mass by 1+z0.93, and number density by 1+z−2.80. The luminosity modification increases slowly with z to 1.8 at z=20. Thus, the stellar mass increase is modest, and the luminosity and stellar density decrease are mainly due to the larger object size in the new model. Since the aging of the universe is stretched in the new model, its temporal evolution is much slower (e.g., at z=10, the age is about a dex longer); stars, black holes, and galaxies do not have to form at unrealistic rates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGalaxiesSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207