MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2290045780 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2147

Estimating non-circular motions in barred galaxies using numerical<i>N</i>-body simulations

2015· article· en· W2290045780 on OpenAlexaff
T. H. Randriamampandry, F. Combes, C. Carignan, Nathan Deg

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsBar (unit)GalaxyCircular motionRotation (mathematics)AstrophysicsGalaxy rotation curveBarred spiral galaxySpiral galaxyPerpendicularSpiral (railway)Disc galaxyGeometryGalaxy formation and evolutionClassical mechanicsMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The observed velocities of the gas in barred galaxies are a combination of the azimuthally averaged circular velocity and non-circular motions, primarily caused by gas streaming along the bar. These non-circular flows must be accounted for before the observed velocities can be used in mass modelling. In this work, we examine the performance of the tilted-ring method and the diskfit algorithm for transforming velocity maps of barred spiral galaxies into rotation curves (RCs) using simulated data. We find that the tilted-ring method, which does not account for streaming motions, under-/overestimates the circular motions when the bar is parallel/perpendicular to the projected major axis. diskfit, which does include streaming motions, is limited to orientations where the bar is not aligned with either the major or minor axis of the image. Therefore, we propose a method of correcting RCs based on numerical simulations of galaxies. We correct the RC derived from the tilted-ring method based on a numerical simulation of a galaxy with similar properties and projections as the observed galaxy. Using observations of NGC 3319, which has a bar aligned with the major axis, as a test case, we show that the inferred mass models from the uncorrected and corrected RCs are significantly different. These results show the importance of correcting for the non-circular motions and demonstrate that new methods of accounting for these motions are necessary as current methods fail for specific bar alignments.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations31
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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