MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811192097 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aacf8f

Star Formation Efficiency per Free-fall Time in nearby Galaxies

2018· article· en· W2811192097 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalaxyStar formationMilky WayMillimeterMolecular cloudGravitational potentialGravitation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We estimate the star formation efficiency per gravitational free-fall time, , from observations of nearby galaxies with resolution matched to the typical size of a giant molecular cloud. This quantity, , is theoretically important but so far has only been measured for Milky Way clouds or inferred indirectly in a few other galaxies. Using new, high-resolution CO imaging from the Physics at High Angular Resolution in nearby Galaxies-Atacama Large Millimeter Array (PHANGS-ALMA) survey, we estimate the gravitational free-fall time at 60–120 pc resolution, and contrast this with the local molecular gas depletion time in order to estimate . Assuming a constant thickness of the molecular gas layer ( H = 100 pc) across the whole sample, the median value of in our sample is 0.7%. We find a mild scale dependence, with higher measured at coarser resolution. Individual galaxies show different values of , with the median ranging from 0.3% to 2.6%. We find the highest in our lowest-mass targets, reflecting both long free-fall times and short depletion times, though we caution that both measurements are subject to biases in low-mass galaxies. We estimate the key systematic uncertainties, and show the dominant uncertainty to be the estimated line-of-sight (LOS) depth through the molecular gas layer and the choice of star formation tracers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations125
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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