MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cosmological galaxy formation simulations using smoothed particle hydrodynamics

2010· article· en· W2016776564 on OpenAlexaff
G. S. Stinson, Jeremy Bailin, H. M. P. Couchman, James Wadsley, Sijing Shen, Sarah Nickerson, Chris B. Brook, Thomas Quinn

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGalaxyGalaxy formation and evolutionStar formationSmoothed-particle hydrodynamicsBulgeHaloSurface brightnessGalaxy rotation curveAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the McMaster Unbiased Galaxy Simulations (MUGS), the first nine galaxies of an unbiased selection ranging in total mass from 5 × 1011 M⊙ to 2 × 1012 M⊙ simulated using N-body smoothed particle hydrodynamics at high resolution. The simulations include a treatment of low-temperature metal cooling, UV background radiation, star formation and physically motivated stellar feedback. Mock images of the simulations show that the simulations lie within the observed range of relations such as that between colour and magnitude and that between brightness and circular velocity (Tully–Fisher). The greatest discrepancy between the simulated galaxies and observed galaxies is the high concentration of material at the centre of the galaxies as represented by the centrally peaked rotation curves and the high bulge-to-total ratios of the simulations determined both kinematically and photometrically. This central concentration represents the excess of low angular momentum material that long has plagued morphological studies of simulated galaxies and suggests that higher resolutions and a more accurate description of feedback will be required to simulate more realistic galaxies. Even with the excess central mass concentrations, the simulations suggest the important role merger history and halo spin play in the formation of discs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.204

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations165
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207