The signature of dissipation in the mass–size relation: are bulges simply spheroids wrapped in a disc?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The relation between the stellar mass and size of a galaxy's structural subcomponents, such as discs and spheroids, is a powerful way to understand the processes involved in their formation. Using very large catalogues of photometric bulge+disc structural decompositions and stellar masses from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release Seven, we carefully define two large subsamples of spheroids in a quantitative manner such that both samples share similar characteristics with one important exception: the ‘bulges’ are embedded in a disc and the ‘pure spheroids’ are galaxies with a single structural component. Our bulge and pure spheroid subsample sizes are 76 012 and 171 243, respectively. Above a stellar mass of ∼1010 M⊙, the mass–size relations of both subsamples are parallel to one another and are close to lines of constant surface mass density. However, the relations are offset by a factor of 1.4, which may be explained by the dominance of dissipation in their formation processes. Whereas the size–mass relation of bulges in discs is consistent with gas-rich mergers, pure spheroids appear to have been formed via a combination of ‘dry’ and ‘wet’ mergers.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".