MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The stellar halo metallicity—luminosity relationship for spiral galaxies

2005· article· en· W2022124994 on OpenAlexaff
Agostino Renda, B. K. Gibson, M. Mouhcine, Rodrigo Ibata, Daisuke Kawata, Chris Flynn, Chris B. Brook

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsMetallicityAstronomyLuminosityGalactic haloSpiral galaxyLenticular galaxyGalaxyElliptical galaxyGalaxy formation and evolutionStellar massHaloStar formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The stellar haloes of spiral galaxies bear important chemodynamical signatures of galaxy formation. We present here the analysis of 89 semi-cosmological spiral galaxy simulations, spanning ∼4 mag in total galactic luminosity. These simulations sample a wide variety of merging histories and show significant dispersion in halo metallicity at a given total luminosity — more than a factor of 10 in metallicity. Our preliminary analysis suggests that galaxies with a more extended merging history possess haloes which have younger and more metal-rich stellar populations than the stellar haloes associated with galaxies with a more abbreviated assembly. A correlation between a halo's metallicity and its surface brightness has also been found, reflecting the correlation between halo metallicity and its stellar mass. Our simulations are compared with recent Hubble Space Telescope observations of resolved stellar haloes in nearby spirals.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.201
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations30
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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