MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057966702 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/148/1/5

THE SPIRAL ARMS OF THE MILKY WAY: THE RELATIVE LOCATION OF EACH DIFFERENT ARM TRACER WITHIN A TYPICAL SPIRAL ARM WIDTH

2014· article· en· W2057966702 on OpenAlexaff
J. P. Vallée

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsSpiral galaxyMilky WayLogarithmic spiralSpiral (railway)AstrophysicsRobotic armGalactic CenterTangentStarsAstronomyGeometryArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the Sun's location in the Galactic disk, different arm tracers (CO, H i , hot dust, etc.) have been employed to locate a tangent to each spiral arm. Using all various and different observed spiral arm tracers (as published elsewhere), we embark on a new goal, namely the statistical analysis of these published data (data mining) to statistically compute the mean location of each spiral arm tracer. We show for a typical arm cross-cut, a separation of 400 pc between the mid-arm and the dust lane (at the inner edge of the arm, toward the Galactic center). Are some arms major and others minor? Separating arms into two sets, as suggested by some, we find the same arm widths between the two sets. Our interpretation is that we live in a multiple (four-arm) spiral (logarithmic) pattern (around a pitch angle of 12°) for the stars and gas in the Milky Way, with a sizable interarm separation (around 3 kpc) at the Sun's location and the same arm width for each arm (near 400 pc from mid-arm to dust lane).

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 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

Citations114
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207