MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075532164 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2220

Spatially resolved LMC star formation history – I. Outside in evolution of the outer LMC disc

2013· article· en· W2075532164 on OpenAlexaff
Ingrid Meschin, Carme Gallart, A. Aparicio, S. L. Hidalgo, M. Monelli, P. B. Stetson, R. Carrera

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsMilky WayStar formationStarsAstronomyLarge Magellanic CloudGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the evolution of three fields in the outer Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) disc (Rgc = 3.5–6.2 kpc). Their star formation history indicates a stellar population gradient such that younger stellar populations are more centrally concentrated. We identify two main star-forming epochs, separated by a period of lower activity between ≃7 and ≃4 Gyr ago. Their relative importance varies from a similar amount of stars formed in the two epochs in the innermost field to only 40 per cent of the stars formed in the more recent epoch in the outermost field. The young star-forming epoch continues to the present time in the innermost field, but lasted only till ≃0.8 and 1.3 Gyr ago at Rgc = 5| $_{.}^{\circ}$|5 and 7| $_{.}^{\circ}$|1, respectively. This gradient is correlated with the measured H i column density and implies an outside-in quenching of the star formation, possibly related to a variation of the size of the H i disc. This could either result from gas depletion due to star formation or ram-pressure stripping, or from to the compression of the gas disc as ram pressure from the Milky Way halo acted on the LMC interstellar medium. The latter two situations may have occurred when the LMC first approached the Milky Way.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations74
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207