MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Disc-like objects in hierarchical hydrodynamical simulations: comparison with observations

2001· article· en· W2140776351 on OpenAlexaff
A. Sáiz, R. Domı́nguez-Tenreiro, P. B. Tissera, Stéphane Courteau

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y TécnicasAgencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y TecnológicaUniversidad Autónoma de MadridUniversity of Oxford
KeywordsPhysicsBulgeAstrophysicsSpiral galaxySpiral (railway)Disc galaxyGalaxy rotation curveFocus (optics)GalaxyRotation (mathematics)Galaxy formation and evolutionGeometryOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present results from a careful and detailed analysis of the structural and dynamical properties of a sample of 29 disc-like objects identified at z = 0 in three AP3M-SPH fully consistent cosmological simulations. These simulations are realizations of a CDM hierarchical model, in which an inefficient Schmidt-law-like algorithm to model the stellar formation process has been implemented. We focus on properties that can be constrained with available data from observations of spiral galaxies, namely the bulge and disc structural parameters and the rotation curves. Comparison with data from Broeils, de Jong and Courteau gives satisfactory agreement, in contrast with previous findings using other codes. This suggests that the stellar formation implementation we have used has succeeded in forming compact bulges that stabilize disc-like structures in the violent phases of their assembly, while in the quiescent phases the gas has cooled and collapsed in accord with the Fall & Efstathiou standard model of disc formation.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations32
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→