Galaxy Groups at 0.3 <= z <= 0.55. I. Group Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The evolution of galaxies in groups may have important implications for the evolution of the star formation history of the universe, since many processes which operate in groups may suppress star formation and the fraction of galaxies in bound groups grows rapidly between z=1 and the present day. In this paper, we present an investigation of the properties of galaxies in galaxy groups at intermediate redshift (z ~ 0.4). The groups were selected from the CNOC2 redshift survey as described in Carlberg et al., 2001, with further spectroscopic follow-up undertaken at the Magellan telescope in order to improve the completeness and depth of the sample. We present the data for the individual groups, and find no clear trend in the fraction of passive galaxies with group velocity dispersion and group concentration. We stack the galaxy groups in order to compare the properties of group galaxies with those of field galaxies at the same redshift. The groups contain a larger fraction of passive galaxies than the field, this trend being particularly clear for galaxies brighter than M_{B_J} < -20 in the higher velocity dispersion groups. In addition, we see evidence for an excess of bright passive galaxies in the groups relative to the field. In contrast, the luminosity functions of the star forming galaxies in the groups and the field are consistent. These trends are qualitatively consitent with the differences between group and field galaxies seen in the local universe.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".