MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2048347867 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1600

MaGICC thick disc – I. Comparing a simulated disc formed with stellar feedback to the Milky Way

2013· article· en· W2048347867 on OpenAlexaff
G. S. Stinson, Jo Bovy, Hans‐Walter Rix, Chris B. Brook, Rok Roškar, Julianne J. Dalcanton, Andrea V. Macciò, James Wadsley, H. M. P. Couchman, Thomas Quinn

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsPhysicsMilky WayAstrophysicsGalaxyStarsMetallicityDisc galaxyGalaxy formation and evolutionAstronomyAbundance (ecology)Galaxy rotation curveSpiral galaxyVelocity dispersion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyse the structure and chemical enrichment of a Milky Way-like galaxy with a stellar mass of 2 × 1010 M⊙, formed in a cosmological hydrodynamical simulation. It is disc dominated with a flat rotation curve, and has a disc scalelength similar to the Milky Way's, but a velocity dispersion that is ∼50 per cent higher. Examining stars in narrow [Fe/H] and [α/Fe] abundance ranges, we find remarkable qualitative agreement between this simulation and observations. (a) The old stars lie in a thickened distribution with a short scalelength, while the young stars form a thinner disc, with scalelengths decreasing, as [Fe/H] increases. (b) Consequently, there is a distinct outward metallicity gradient. (c) Mono-abundance populations exist with a continuous distribution of scaleheights (from thin to thick). However, the simulated galaxy has a distinct and substantive very thick disc (hz ∼ 1.5 kpc), not seen in the Milky Way. The broad agreement between simulations and observations allows us to test the validity of observational proxies used in the literature: we find in the simulation that mono-abundance populations are good proxies for single age populations (<1 Gyr) for most abundances.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.184 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations127
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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