MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effect of radiative cooling on the X-ray properties of galaxy clusters

2000· article· en· W2051327410 on OpenAlexaff
F. R. Pearce, P. Thomas, H. M. P. Couchman, A. C. Edge

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsRadiative coolingAstrophysicsCooling flowRadiative transferGalaxy clusterCluster (spacecraft)GalaxyBaryonDark matterLuminosityOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we investigate the effect of cooling on the X-ray properties of galaxy clusters. We have performed N-body, hydrodynamical simulations both with and without the effects of radiative cooling, but neglecting the effects of star formation and feedback. We show that radiative cooling produces an inflow of high-entropy gas from the outer parts of the cluster, thus raising the cluster temperature and decreasing the X-ray luminosity. With radiative cooling clusters are on average from three to five times less luminous in X-rays than the same clusters simulated without cooling. However, we do not produce a large constant-density core in either the gas or the dark matter distributions. Our results contradict previous work in which cooling raises the X-ray luminosity and deposits an unreasonably large amount of mass in the central cluster galaxy. We achieve this by selecting our numerical resolution in such a way that a reasonable fraction of the baryonic material cools and by decoupling the hot and cold gas in our simulations, a first step towards modelling multiphase gas. We emphasize that globally cooling a sensible amount of material is vital and the presence or absence of massive central concentrations of cold baryonic material has a dramatic effect upon the resultant X-ray properties of the clusters.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.389
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations151
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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