MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078981992 · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/782/2/l39

DARK MATTER CORES IN THE FORNAX AND SCULPTOR DWARF GALAXIES: JOINING HALO ASSEMBLY AND DETAILED STAR FORMATION HISTORIES

2014· article· en· W2078981992 on OpenAlexaff
N. C. Amorisco, Jesús Zavala, Thomas de Boer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsDark matterDwarf galaxyHaloGalaxyFornax ClusterSupernovaStar formationDwarf spheroidal galaxyDwarf galaxy problemDark matter haloAstronomyCold dark matterLenticular galaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We combine the detailed star formation histories of the Fornax and Sculptor dwarf spheroidals with the mass assembly history of their dark matter (DM) halo progenitors to estimate if the energy deposited by Type II supernovae (SNe II) is sufficient to create a substantial DM core. Assuming the efficiency of energy injection of the SNe II into DM particles is gc = 0.05, we find that a single early episode, z ≳ z infall , that combines the energy of all SNe II due to explode over 0.5 Gyr is sufficient to create a core of several hundred parsecs in both Sculptor and Fornax. Therefore, our results suggest that it is energetically plausible to form cores in cold dark matter (CDM) halos via early episodic gas outflows triggered by SNe II. Furthermore, based on CDM merger rates and phase-space density considerations, we argue that the probability of a subsequent complete regeneration of the cusp is small for a substantial fraction of dwarf-size halos.

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)0.001
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations50
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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