The disc origin of the Milky Way bulge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a long-standing debate over the origin of the metal-poor stellar populations of the Milky Way (MW) bulge, with the two leading scenarios being that these populations are either (i) part of a classical metal-poor spheroid or (ii) the same population as the chemically defined thick disc seen at the solar neighbourhood. Here we test whether the latter scenario can reproduce the observed chemical properties of the MW bulge. To do so we compare an N-body simulation of a composite (thin+thick) stellar disc – which evolves secularly to form a bar and a boxy/peanut (b/p) bulge – to data from APOGEE DR13. This model, in which the thick disc is massive and centrally concentrated, can reproduce the morphology of the metal-rich and metal-poor stellar populations in the bulge, as well as the mean metallicity and [α/Fe] maps as obtained from the APOGEE data. It also reproduces the trends, in both longitude and latitude, of the bulge metallicity distribution function (MDF). Additionally, we show that the model predicts small but measurable azimuthal metallicity variations in the inner disc due to the differential mapping of the thin and thick disc in the bar. We therefore see that the chemo-morphological relations of stellar populations in the MW bulge are naturally reproduced by mapping the thin and thick discs of the inner MW into a b/p.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".