MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120528046 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1058

A superbubble feedback model for galaxy simulations

2014· article· en· W2120528046 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Keller, James Wadsley, Samantha M. Benincasa, H. M. P. Couchman

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperbubblePhysicsSupernovaAstrophysicsGalaxyStar formationMilky WayInterstellar mediumThermal conductionStarsBubbleMechanicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a new stellar feedback model that reproduces superbubbles. Superbubbles from clustered young stars evolve quite differently to individual supernovae and are substantially more efficient at generating gas motions. The essential new components of the model are thermal conduction, subgrid evaporation and a subgrid multiphase treatment for cases where the simulation mass resolution is insufficient to model the early stages of the superbubble. The multiphase stage is short compared to superbubble lifetimes. Thermal conduction physically regulates the hot gas mass without requiring a free parameter. Accurately following the hot component naturally avoids overcooling. Prior approaches tend to heat too much mass, leaving the hot interstellar medium (ISM) below 106 K and susceptible to rapid cooling unless ad hoc fixes were used. The hot phase also allows feedback energy to correctly accumulate from multiple, clustered sources, including stellar winds and supernovae. We employ high-resolution simulations of a single star cluster to show the model is insensitive to numerical resolution, unresolved ISM structure and suppression of conduction by magnetic fields. We also simulate a Milky Way analogue and a dwarf galaxy. Both galaxies show regulated star formation and produce strong outflows.

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 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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

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 head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations209
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207