THE DISKMASS SURVEY. VIII. ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISK STABILITY AND STAR FORMATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We study the relationship between the stability level of late-type galaxy disks and their star-formation activity using integral-field gaseous and stellar kinematic data. Specifically, we compare the two-component (gas+stars) stability parameter from Romeo & Wiegert ( Q RW ), incorporating stellar kinematic data for the first time, and the star-formation rate estimated from 21 cm continuum emission. We determine the stability level of each disk probabilistically using a Bayesian analysis of our data and a simple dynamical model. Our method incorporates the shape of the stellar velocity ellipsoid (SVE) and yields robust SVE measurements for over 90% of our sample. Averaging over this subsample, we find a meridional shape of for the SVE and, at 1.5 disk scale lengths, a stability parameter of Q RW = 2.0 ± 0.9. We also find that the disk-averaged star-formation-rate surface density ( ) is correlated with the disk-averaged gas and stellar mass surface densities (Σ e , g and Σ e , * ) and anti-correlated with Q RW . We show that an anti-correlation between and Q RW can be predicted using empirical scaling relations, such that this outcome is consistent with well-established statistical properties of star-forming galaxies. Interestingly, is not correlated with the gas-only or star-only Toomre parameters, demonstrating the merit of calculating a multi-component stability parameter when comparing to star-formation activity. Finally, our results are consistent with the Ostriker et al. model of self-regulated star-formation, which predicts . Based on this and other theoretical expectations, we discuss the possibility of a physical link between disk stability level and star-formation rate in light of our empirical results.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".