More insights into bar quenching
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The underlying nature of the process of star formation quenching in the central regions of barred disc galaxies that is due to the action of stellar bar is not fully understood. We present a multi-wavelength study of four barred galaxies using the archival data from optical, ultraviolet, infrared, CO, and HI imaging data on star formation progression and stellar and gas distribution to better understand the process of bar quenching. We found that for three galaxies, the region between the nuclear or central sub-kiloparsec region and the end of the bar (bar region) is devoid of neutral and molecular hydrogen. While the detected neutral hydrogen is very negligible, we note that molecular hydrogen is present abundantly in the nuclear or central sub-kiloparsec regions of all four galaxies. The bar co-rotation radius is also devoid of recent star formation for three out of four galaxies. One galaxy shows significant molecular hydrogen along the bar, which might mean that the gas is still being funnelled to the centre by the action of the stellar bar. Significant star formation is also present along the bar co-rotation radius of this galaxy. The study presented here supports a scenario in which gas redistribution as a result of the action of stellar bar clears the bar region of fuel for further star formation and eventually leads to star formation quenching in the bar region.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".