Paper detail

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF MORPHOLOGICAL CLASSIFICATIONS OF APM GALAXIES

We investigate the consistency of visual morphological classifications of galaxies by comparing classifications for 831 galaxies from six independent observers. The galaxies were classified on laser print copy images or on computer screen produced from scans with the Automated Plate Measuring (APM) machine. Classifications are compared using the Revised Hubble numerical type index T. We find that individual observers agree with one another with rms combined dispersions of between 1.3 and 2.3 type units, typically about 1.8 units. The dispersions tend to decrease slightly with increasing angular diameter and, in some cases, with increasing axial ratio $(b/a)$. The agreement between independent observers is reasonably good but the scatter is non-negligible. In spite of the scatter the Revised Hubble T system can be used to train an automated galaxy classifier, e.g. an Artificial Neural Network, to handle the large number of galaxy images that are being compiled in the APM and other surveys.

preprint1995arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.