Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current maps of the Milky Way disk still have large differences, much like early maps of the Earth's continents made in the 16th century had sizeable differences in the locations of continents and many areas labeled "terra incognita." Exactly where are the spiral arms in our home Galaxy (in radius and longitude)? Here a meta-analysis is made of the recent (1995-2001) observational data on the pitch angle (p) and the number (m) of spiral arms in our home Galaxy. In order to clarify our image of the structure of the Milky Way, logarithmic model arms of the form ln(r/r0) = k(θ - θ0) are fitted to the observed tangents to the spiral arms and to the observed position angle (P.A.) of the Galaxy's central bar. The main results are that p = 12° inward and m = 4, with logarithmic spiral arm parameters r0 = 2.3 kpc and θ0 = 0° for the Norma arm. The value of θ0 for the other three arms is modeled by rotating the Norma arm in steps of 90°. These values are similar to those found by Ortiz & Lépine using earlier observational data, with some differences. The best model predicts an interarm distance near the Sun of S = 2.5 kpc (from the Sagittarius to the Perseus arm) and a distance from the Sun to the Sagittarius arm of 0.9 kpc. These values are compared to our limited and uncertain data from the observed nearby spiral arms. These predicted values near the Sun differ substantially from the predictions of Ortiz & Lépine, as discussed in the text.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".