Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a performance analysis of the DiskMass Survey. The survey uses collisionless tracers in the form of disk stars to measure the surface density of spiral disks, to provide an absolute calibration of the stellar mass-to-light ratio ( ), and to yield robust estimates of the dark-matter halo density profile in the inner regions of galaxies. We find that a disk inclination range of 25°–35° is optimal for our measurements, consistent with our survey design to select nearly face-on galaxies. Uncertainties in disk scale heights are significant, but can be estimated from radial scale lengths to 25% now, and more precisely in the future. We detail the spectroscopic analysis used to derive line-of-sight velocity dispersions, precise at low surface-brightness, and accurate in the presence of composite stellar populations. Our methods take full advantage of large-grasp integral-field spectroscopy and an extensive library of observed stars. We show that the baryon-to-total mass fraction ( ) is not a well-defined observational quantity because it is coupled to the halo mass model. This remains true even when the disk mass is known and spatially extended rotation curves are available. In contrast, the fraction of the rotation speed supplied by the disk at 2.2 scale lengths (disk maximality) is a robust observational indicator of the baryonic disk contribution to the potential. We construct the error budget for the key quantities: dynamical disk mass surface density (Σ dyn ), disk stellar mass-to-light ratio ( ), and disk maximality ( ). Random and systematic errors in these quantities for individual galaxies will be ∼25%, while survey precision for sample quartiles are reduced to 10%, largely devoid of systematic errors outside of distance uncertainties.
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 | 0.010 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
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".