MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2042439050 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/775/2/90

THE DYNAMICS OF STAR STREAM GAPS

2013· article· en· W2042439050 on OpenAlexaff
R. G. Carlberg

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of TorontoHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsRADIUSSTREAMSRelative velocityAngular momentumMechanicsOrbit (dynamics)Classical mechanicsComputational physicsAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A massive object crossing a narrow stream of stars orbiting in the halo of the galaxy induces velocity changes both along and transverse to the stream that can lead to the development of a visible gap. For a stream narrow relative to its orbital radius, the stream crossing time is sufficiently short that the impact approximation can be used to derive the changes in angular momenta and radial actions along the star stream. The epicyclic approximation is used to calculate the evolution of the density of the stream as it orbits around in a galactic potential. Analytic expressions are available for a point mass, however, the general expressions are easily numerically evaluated for perturbing objects with arbitrary density profiles. With a simple allowance for the velocity dispersion of the stream, moderately warm streams can be modeled. The predicted evolution agrees well with the outcomes of simulations of stellar streams for streams with widths up to 1% of the orbital radius of the stream. The angular momentum distribution within the stream shears out gaps with time, further reducing the visibility of streams, although the size of the shear effect requires more detailed simulations that account for the creation of the stream. An illustrative model indicates that shear will set a lower limit of a few times the stream width for the length of gaps that persist. In general, the equations are useful for dynamical insights into the development of stream gaps and their measurement.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
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
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.195
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 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

Citations56
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→