MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105526116 · doi:10.5167/uzh-90650

Angular momentum acquisition in galaxy halos

2013· article· en· W3105526116 on OpenAlexaff
Kyle R. Stewart, Alyson Brooks, James S. Bullock, Ariyeh H. Maller, Jürg Diemand, James Wadsley, Leonidas A. Moustakas

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAngular momentumHaloAstrophysicsGalaxyAccretion (finance)Cold dark matterDark matterSpecific relative angular momentumDark matter haloGalaxy formation and evolutionGalactic haloMilky WayAstronomyTotal angular momentum quantum numberClassical mechanicsAngular momentum coupling

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use high-resolution cosmological hydrodynamic simulations to study the angular momentum acquisition of gaseous halos around Milky-Way-sized galaxies. We find that cold mode accreted gas enters a galaxy halo with ~70% more specific angular momentum than dark matter averaged over cosmic time (though with a very large dispersion). In fact, we find that all matter has a higher spin parameter when measured at accretion than when averaged over the entire halo lifetime, and is well characterized by λ ~ 0.1, at accretion. Combined with the fact that cold flow gas spends a relatively short time (1-2 dynamical times) in the halo before sinking to the center, this naturally explains why cold flow halo gas has a specific angular momentum much higher than that of the halo and often forms "cold flow disks." We demonstrate that the higher angular momentum of cold flow gas is related to the fact that it tends to be accreted along filaments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations139
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MINDSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207