MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2056425191 · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/739/2/l47

GALAXY DISKS ARE SUBMAXIMAL

2011· article· en· W2056425191 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalaxySpiral galaxyLuminosityGalaxy rotation curveVelocity dispersionStarsTully–Fisher relationBaryonStellar massRotation (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We measure the contribution of galaxy disks to the overall gravitational potential of 30 nearly face-on intermediate-to-late-type spirals from the DiskMass Survey. The central vertical velocity dispersion of the disk stars (σ disk z , R = 0 ) is related to the maximum rotation speed ( V max ) as σ disk z , R = 0 ∼ 0.26 V max , consistent with previous measurements for edge-on disk galaxies and a mean stellar velocity ellipsoid axial ratio α ≡ σ z /σ R = 0.6. For reasonable values of disk oblateness, this relation implies these galaxy disks are submaximal. We find disks in our sample contribute only 15%–30% of the dynamical mass within 2.2 disk scale lengths ( h R ), with percentages increasing systematically with luminosity, rotation speed, and redder color. These trends indicate that the mass ratio of disk-to-total matter remains at or below 50% at 2.2 h R even for the most extreme, fast-rotating disks ( V max ⩾ 300 km s −1 ) of the reddest rest frame, face-on color ( B − K ∼ 4 mag), and highest luminosity ( M K < −26.5 mag). Therefore, spiral disks in general should be submaximal. Our results imply that the stellar mass-to-light ratio and hence the accounting of baryons in stars should be lowered by at least a factor of three.

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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations103
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207