MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2771350081 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stx3129

Bars and spirals in tidal interactions with an ensemble of galaxy mass models

2017· article· en· W2771350081 on OpenAlexaff
Alex R. Pettitt, James Wadsley

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsGalaxyGalaxy rotation curveBar (unit)AstrophysicsSpiral galaxySpiral (railway)Rotation (mathematics)BulgeGalaxy formation and evolutionGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present simulations of the gaseous and stellar material in several different galaxy mass models under the influence of different tidal fly-bys to assess the changes in their bar and spiral morphology. Five different mass models are chosen to represent the variety of rotation curves seen in nature. We find a multitude of different spiral and bar structures can be created, with their properties dependent on the strength of the interaction. We calculate pattern speeds, spiral wind-up rates, bar lengths, and angular momentum exchange to quantify the changes in disc morphology in each scenario. The wind-up rates of the tidal spirals follow the 2:1 resonance very closely for the flat and dark matter-dominated rotation curves, whereas the more baryon-dominated curves tend to wind-up faster, influenced by their inner bars. Clear spurs are seen in most of the tidal spirals, most noticeable in the flat rotation curve models. Bars formed both in isolation and interactions agree well with those seen in real galaxies, with a mixture of ‘fast’ and ‘slow’ rotators. We find no strong correlation between bar length or pattern speed and the interaction strength. Bar formation is, however, accelerated/induced in four out of five of our models. We close by briefly comparing the morphology of our models to real galaxies, easily finding analogues for nearly all simulations presenter here, showing passages of small companions can easily reproduce an ensemble of observed morphologies.

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)0.002
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations54
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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