MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076505864 · doi:10.1086/320437

The Trajectory of the Jet in NGC 4258

2001· article· en· W2076505864 on OpenAlexaff
Anik Daigle, Jean-René Roy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsJet (fluid)GalaxyThick diskRADIUSRam pressurePlane (geometry)Spiral galaxyThin diskAmplitudeAstronomyDiscHaloGalaxy formation and evolutionMechanicsGeometryStar formationOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The large spiral galaxy NGC 4258 (M106) harbors the nearest extragalactic astrophysical jet. While low-resolution radio and X-ray observations indicate that the jet propagates outside the galaxy disk, high-resolution optical and CO millimeter observations point instead to a propagation within the gaseous disk of the galaxy. We have used a simple analytical model to explore a scenario where the jet propagates at an angle of ~ 2° with respect to the plane of the galaxy in the inner disk and is forced out of the galaxy plane at a radius of ~ 5 kpc. This scenario brings together the in-the-disk and out-of-the-disk views into a hybrid model which accounts for most of the observed properties of the jet. We show that (1) the component normal to the disk plane of the forces acting on the jet, dominated by ram pressure, has an amplitude sufficient to propel the jet out of the main disk at galactocentric distances of about 4-5 kpc; (2) the apparent deflections of the jet are probably caused by forces acting within the plane of the disk for the first few kiloparsecs, by the projection effect of the curved trajectory exiting the disk, and by chimney-type structures popping out of the disk at r > 4 kpc. We suggest that the rich outer filamentary structures of the jet are due to breakout into the low-pressure halo gas.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.536
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.213
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations8
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207