MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078959314 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stt723

The meaning and consequences of star formation criteria in galaxy models with resolved stellar feedback

2013· article· en· W2078959314 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsStar formationAstrophysicsMolecular cloudGalaxySupernovaVirial theoremMilky WayStarsRedshiftTurbulenceMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We consider the effects of different criteria for determining where stars will form in gas on galactic scales, in simulations with high (1 pc) resolution, with explicitly resolved physics of Giant Molecular Cloud (GMC) formation and destruction, and stellar feedback from supernovae, radiation pressure, stellar winds and photoheating. We compare: (1) a self-gravity criterion (based on the local virial parameter and the assumption that self-gravitating gas collapses to high density in a single free-fall time), (2) a fixed density threshold, (3) a molecular-gas law, (4) a temperature threshold, (5) a requirement that the gas be Jeans unstable, (6) a criteria that cooling times be shorter than dynamical times and (7) a convergent-flow criterion. We consider all of these in both a Milky Way (MW)-like and high-density (starburst or high-redshift) galaxy. With feedback present, all models produce identical integrated star formation rates (SFRs), in good agreement with the Kennicutt relation; without feedback all produce orders-of-magnitude excessive SFRs. This is totally dependent on feedback and independent of the star formation (SF) law, even if the ‘local’ collapse efficiency is 100 per cent. However, the predicted spatial and density distribution depend strongly on the SF criteria. Because cooling rates are generally fast within galaxy discs, and gas is turbulent, criteria (4)–(7) are very ‘weak’ and spread the SF uniformly over most of the disc (down to densities n ∼ 0.01–0.1 cm−3). A molecular criterion (3) localizes to slightly higher densities, but still a wide range; for metallicity near solar, it is almost identical to a fixed density threshold at n ∼ 1 cm−3 (well below the mean density in the central MW or starburst systems). A fixed density threshold (2) can always select the highest resolved densities, but must be adjusted both for simulation resolution and individual galaxy properties – the same threshold that works well in a MW-like simulation will select nearly all gas in a starburst. Binding criteria (1) tend to adaptively select the largest local overdensities, independent of galaxy model or resolution, and automatically predict clustered SF. We argue that this SF model (possible with other secondary criteria) is most physically motivated and presents significant numerical advantages in simulations with a large dynamic range.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.196 · 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