MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2293411224 · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/781/1/l14

THE PRESSURE OF THE STAR-FORMING INTERSTELLAR MEDIUM IN COSMOLOGICAL SIMULATIONS

2014· article· en· W2293411224 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterstellar mediumGalaxyRedshiftHaloBulgeStar formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine the pressure of the star-forming interstellar medium (ISM) of Milky-Way-sized disk galaxies using fully cosmological SPH+ N -body, high-resolution simulations. These simulations include explicit treatment of metal-line cooling in addition to dust and self-shielding, H 2 -based star formation. The four simulated halos have masses ranging from a few times 10 10 to nearly 10 12 solar masses. Using a kinematic decomposition of these galaxies into present-day bulge and disk components, we find that the typical pressure of the star-forming ISM in the present-day bulge is higher than that in the present-day disk by an order of magnitude. We also find that the pressure of the star-forming ISM at high redshift is, on average, higher than ISM pressures at low redshift. This explains why the bulge forms at higher pressures: the disk assembles at lower redshift when the ISM exhibits lower pressure and the bulge forms at high redshift when the ISM has higher pressure. If ISM pressure and IMF variation are tied together, these results could indicate a time-dependent IMF in Milky-Way-like systems as well as a different IMF in the bulge and the disk.

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)0.004
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207