MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Scaling relations and the fundamental line of the local group dwarf galaxies

2008· article· en· W2156291221 on OpenAlexaff
Joanna Woo, Stéphane Courteau, Avishai Dekel

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsLocal GroupMetallicityDwarf galaxyScalingStar formationSupernovaGalaxyFundamental plane (elliptical galaxies)RADIUSStellar populationSurface brightnessLenticular galaxyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the scaling relations between global properties of dwarf galaxies in the local group. In addition to quantifying the correlations between pairs of variables, we explore the ‘shape’ of the distribution of galaxies in log parameter space using standardized principal component analysis, the analysis is performed first in the 3D structural parameter space of stellar mass M*, internal velocity V and characteristic radius R* (or surface brightness μ*). It is then extended to a 4D space that includes a stellar population parameter such as metallicity Z or star formation rate ⁠. We find that the local group dwarfs basically define a one-parameter ‘fundamental line’ (FL), primarily driven by stellar mass, M*. A more detailed inspection reveals differences between the star formation properties of dwarf irregulars (dI's) and dwarf ellipticals (dE's), beyond the tendency of the latter to be more massive. In particular, the metallicities of dI's are typically lower by a factor of 3 at a given M* and they grow faster with increasing M*, showing a tighter FL in the 4D space for the dE's. The structural scaling relations of dI's resemble those of the more massive spirals, but the dI's have lower star formation rates for a given M* which also grow faster with increasing M*. On the other hand, the FL of the dE's departs from the fundamental plane of bigger ellipticals. While the one-parameter nature of the FL and the associated slopes of the scaling relations are consistent with the general predictions of supernova feedback from Dekel & Woo, the differences between the FL's of the dE's and the dI's remain a challenge and should serve as a guide for the secondary physical processes responsible for these two types.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations162
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207