Fast cloud–cloud collisions in a strongly barred galaxy: suppression of massive star formation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Recent galaxy observations show that star formation activity changes depending on galactic environments. In order to understand the diversity of galactic-scale star formation, it is crucial to understand the formation and evolution of giant molecular clouds in an extreme environment. We focus on observational evidence that bars in strongly barred galaxies lack massive stars even though quantities of molecular gas are sufficient to form stars. In this paper, we present a hydrodynamical simulation of a strongly barred galaxy, using a stellar potential which is taken from observational results of NGC 1300, and we compare cloud properties between different galactic environments: bar, bar-end, and spiral arms. We find that the mean of cloud’s virial parameter is αvir ∼ 1 and that there is no environmental dependence, indicating that the gravitationally bound state of a cloud is not behind the observational evidence of the lack of massive stars in strong bars. Instead, we focus on cloud–cloud collisions, which have been proposed as a triggering mechanism for massive star formation. We find that the collision speed in the bar is faster than those in the other regions. We examine the collision frequency using clouds’ kinematics and conclude that the fast collisions in the bar could originate from random-like motion of clouds due to elliptical gas orbits shifted by the bar potential. These results suggest that the observed regions of lack of active star formation in the strong bar originate from the fast cloud–cloud collisions, which are inefficient in forming massive stars, due to the galactic-scale violent gas motion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".