MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2092823919 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/773/2/173

A GALACTIC WEIGH-IN: MASS MODELS OF SINGS GALAXIES USING CHEMO-SPECTROPHOTOMETRIC GALACTIC EVOLUTION MODELS

2013· article· en· W2092823919 on OpenAlexaff
M.-M. de Denus-Baillargeon, Olivier Hernandez, S. Boissier, P. Amram, C. Carignan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAstrophysicsPhysicsBulgeGalaxySpiral galaxyDiscStellar populationGalaxy formation and evolutionHaloStellar massPhotometry (optics)AstronomyDark matter haloPopulationDark matterThick diskStar formationStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The baryonic mass-to-light ratio (ϒ ⋆ ) used to perform the photometry-to-mass conversion has a tremendous influence on the measurement of the baryonic content and distribution as well as on the determination of the dark halo parameters. Since numerous clues hint at an inside-out formation process for galaxies, a radius-dependant ϒ ⋆ is needed to physically represent the radially varying stellar population. In this article, we use chemo-spectrophotometric galactic evolution (CSPE) models to determine ϒ ⋆ for a wide range of masses and sizes in the scenario of an inside-out formation process by gas accretion. We apply our method to a SINGS subsample of 10 spiral and dwarf galaxies with photometric coverage ranging from the UV to the mid-IR. The CSPE models prove to be a good tool for weighting the different photometric bands in order to obtain consistent stellar disk masses regardless of the spectral band used. On the other hand, we show that the color index versus ϒ ⋆ relation is an imperfect tool for assigning masses to young stellar populations because of the degeneracy affecting ϒ ⋆ in all bands at low color index. The disks resulting from our analysis are compatible with the maximum disk hypothesis provided that an adequate bulge/disk decomposition is performed and that the correction for the presence of a bar is not neglected since bars disturb the internal disk kinematics. Disk-mass models including ϒ ⋆ as a free parameter as well as models using our physically motivated, radially varying ϒ ⋆ are presented and discussed for each galaxy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→