MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910567047 · doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2983

Spiral structure in barred galaxies. Observational constraints to spiral arm formation mechanisms

2018· article· en· W2910567047 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Joan Font, J. E. Beckman, P. A. James, P. A. Patsis

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryYork UniversityScience and Technology Facilities CouncilCarnegie Mellon UniversityOffice of ScienceJohns Hopkins UniversityCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityHarvard UniversityBrookhaven National LaboratoryU.S. Department of EnergyCalifornia Institute of TechnologyOhio State UniversityNational Science FoundationUniversity of WashingtonAlfred P. Sloan FoundationNew Mexico State UniversityUniversity of PortsmouthVanderbilt UniversityYale UniversityJet Propulsion LaboratoryPrinceton University
KeywordsPhysicsBar (unit)RADIUSAstrophysicsSpiral (railway)Pitch angleSpiral galaxyBarred spiral galaxyGalaxyBulgeAngular momentumGeometryGalaxy formation and evolutionDisc galaxyAstronomyClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method, which we have developed for determining corotation radii, has allowed us to map in detail the radial resonant structures of barred spiral galaxies. Here, we have combined this information with new determinations of the bar strength and the pitch angle of the innermost segment of the spiral arms to find relationships between these parameters of relevance to the dynamical evolution of the galaxies. We show how (1) the bar mass fraction, (2) the scaled bar angular momentum, (3) the pitch angle, and (4) the shear parameter vary along the Hubble sequence, and we also plot along the Hubble sequence (5) the scaled bar length, (6) the ratio of bar corotation radius to bar length, (7) the scaled bar pattern speed, and (8) the bar strength. It is of interest to note that the parameters (2), (5), (6), (7), and (8) all show breaks in their behaviour at type Scd. We find that bars with high shear have only small pitch angles, while bars with large pitch angles must have low shear; we also find a generally inverse trend of the pitch angle with bar strength. An inference that at first seems counter-intuitive is that the most massive bars rotate most slowly but have the largest angular momenta. Among a further set of detailed results, we pick out here the 2:1 ratio between the number of spiral arms and the number of corotations outside the bar. These results give a guideline to theories of disc–bar evolution.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.231 · 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.

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

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207