MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105837129 · doi:10.25916/sut.26244620.v1

Connecting Clump Sizes in Turbulent Disk Galaxies to Instability Theory

2024· article· en· W3105837129 on OpenAlexaff
David B. Fisher, Karl Glazebrook, Roberto Abraham, Ivana Damjanov, Heidi A. White, Danail Obreschkow, R. Basset, G. Bekiaris, Emily Wisnioski, Alberto D. Bolatto

Bibliographic record

VenueUWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueMax-Planck-GesellschaftSpace Telescope Science InstituteAustralian Research CouncilU.S. Department of StateNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsInstabilityAstrophysicsTurbulencePhysicsGalaxyMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this letter we study the mean sizes of Hμ clumps in turbulent disk galaxies relative to kinematics, gas fractions, and Toomre Q. We use ∼100 pc resolution HST images, IFU kinematics, and gas fractions of a sample of rare, nearby turbulent disks with properties closely matched to main-sequence galaxies (the DYNAMO sample). We find linear correlations of normalized mean clump sizes with both the gas fraction and the velocity dispersion-to-rotation velocity ratio of the host galaxy. We show that these correlations are consistent with predictions derived from a model of instabilities in a self-gravitating disk (the so-called "violent disk instability model"). We also observe, using a two-fluid model for Q, a correlation between the size of clumps and self-gravity-driven unstable regions. These results are most consistent with the hypothesis that massive star-forming clumps in turbulent disks are the result of instabilities in self-gravitating gas-rich disks, and therefore provide a direct connection between resolved clump sizes and this in situ mechanism.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations28
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUWA Profiles and Research Repository (UWA)Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207