Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We demonstrate the power of Gibbs point process models from the spatial statistics literature when applied to studies of resolved galaxies. We conduct a rigorous analysis of the spatial distributions of objects in the star formation complexes of M33, including giant molecular clouds (GMCs) and young stellar cluster candidates (YSCCs). We choose a hierarchical model structure from GMCs to YSCCs based on the natural formation hierarchy between them. This approach circumvents the limitations of the empirical two-point correlation function analysis by naturally accounting for the inhomogeneity present in the distribution of YSCCs. We also investigate the effects of GMCs’ properties on their spatial distributions. We confirm that the distribution of GMCs and YSCCs are highly correlated. We found that the spatial distributions of YSCCs reaches a peak of clustering pattern at ∼250 pc scale compared to a Poisson process. This clustering mainly occurs in regions where the galactocentric distance ≳4.5 kpc. Furthermore, the galactocentric distance of GMCs and their mass have strong positive effects on the correlation strength between GMCs and YSCCs. We outline some possible implications of these findings for our understanding of the cluster formation process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".