Spin Alignment in Analogues of The Local Sheet
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tidal torque theory and simulations of large scale structure predict spin vectors of massive galaxies should be coplanar with sheets in the cosmic web. Recently demonstrated, the giants (Ks⩽ -22.5 mag) in the Local Volume beyond the Local Sheet have spin vectors directed close to the plane of the Local Supercluster, supporting the predictions of Tidal Torque Theory. However, the giants in the Local Sheet encircling the Local Group display a distinctly different arrangement, suggesting that the mass asymmetry of the Local Group or its progenitor torqued them from their primordial spin directions. To investigate the origin of the spin alignment of giants locally, analogues of the Local Sheet were identified in the SDSS DR9. Similar to the Local Sheet, analogues have an interacting pair of disk galaxies isolated from the remaining sheet members. Modified sheets in which there is no interacting pair of disk galaxies were identified as a control sample. Galaxies in face-on control sheets do not display axis ratios predominantly weighted toward low values, contrary to the expectation of tidal torque theory. For face-on and edge-on sheets, the distribution of axis ratios for galaxies in analogues is distinct from that in controls with a confidence of 97.6% & 96.9%, respectively. This corroborates the hypothesis that an interacting pair can affect spin directions of neighbouring galaxies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".