Sidney van den Bergh Dominion Astrophysical Observatory National Research Council 5071 West Saanich Road Victoria, British Columbia V8X 4M6 Canada Received: ; Revised:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present paper presents a discussion of classification systems for galaxies, with special emphasis on possible modifications of the Hubble "tuning fork" diagram, and on galaxy types not included in Hubble's original scheme. Hubble's morphological types were defined in terms of standards observed at small look-back times that were mostly located in the field, or in poor clusters. It is pointed out that it is often difficult to shoehorn galaxies located in the cores of rich clusters, or objects viewed at large look-back times, into the Hubble classification system. The evolutionary relationships between E, S0 and dSph galaxies are presently still controversial and poorly understood. It is suggested that S0 galaxies may have arrived at their present morphology along various evolutionary tracks. Late-type barred spirals are found to be systematically less luminous than normal late-type galaxies. This suggests that the dichotomy between normal and barred spirals may reflect significant d...
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.389 | 0.111 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".