MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The formation and evolution of bars in low surface brightness galaxies with cold dark matter haloes

2003· article· en· W2158819337 on OpenAlexaff
Lucio Mayer, James Wadsley

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsSurface brightnessBulgeDark matterDark matter haloHaloGalaxyCold dark matterGalaxy formation and evolutionRADIUSStar formationSpiral galaxyBar (unit)Low MassAstronomyStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We perform several high-resolution simulations of low surface brightness galaxies (LSBGs) embedded in cold dark matter haloes to study how likely bar formation is in such systems. The behaviour of various collisionless galaxy models is studied both in isolation and in the presence of a large perturbing satellite. We also consider models with a dominant gaseous component in the disc. We find that in general bar formation requires disc masses at least a factor of 2 higher than those inferred for LSBGs under the assumption of a normal stellar mass-to-light ratio. Instead, if LSBGs have fairly light, low surface density discs, they are stable to the formation of a stellar bar within NFW (Navarro–Frenk–White) haloes spanning a range of concentrations. However, a purely gaseous light disc can form a bar for realistic temperatures provided that cooling is very efficient (we adopt an isothermal equation of state) and that the halo has a very low concentration, c < 5. The bars that form in these low surface brightness (LSB) models are significantly shorter than the typical halo scale radius — their overall angular momentum content might be too low to affect significantly the inner dark halo structure. Once formed, all the bars evolve into bulge-like structures in only a few gigayears and can excite spiral patterns in the surrounding disc component. The recently discovered red LSBGs show significant non-axisymmetric structure and bulge-like components, and share many of their structural properties with the final states of our LSB models with massive discs. Our results imply that a bulge-like component must be present in any LSBG that ever went bar-unstable in the past.

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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations91
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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