Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nature of our Milky Way galaxy is re-examined from an eclectic point of view. Evidence for a central bar, for example, is not reflected in the distribution of RR Lyrae variables in the central bulge (Majaess. Acta Astron. 60, 55 (2010); Dékány et al. arXiv:1309.5933. 2013), and it is not clear if either a 2-armed or 4-armed spiral pattern is appropriate for the spiral arms. Radial velocity mapping of the Galaxy using radio H I, H II, or CO observations is compromised by the assumptions adopted for simple Galactic rotation. The Sun’s local standard of rest (LSR) velocity is ∼14 km s −1 rather than 20 km s −1 , the local circular velocity is 251 ± 9 km s −1 rather than 220 km s −1 , and young groups of stars exhibit a 10–20 km s −1 “kick” relative to what is expected from Galactic rotation. By implication, the same may be true for star-forming gas clouds affected by the Galaxy’s spiral density wave, raising concerns about their use for mapping spiral arms. Proper motion data in conjunction with the newly-estimated velocity components for the Sun’s motion imply a distance to the Galactic centre of R 0 = 8.34 ± 0.27 kpc, consistent with recent estimates, which average 8.24 ± 0.09 kpc. A cosinusoidal Galactic potential is not ruled out by observations of open star clusters. The planetary nebula cluster Bica 6, for example, has a near-escape orbit for a Newtonian potential, but a near-normal orbit in a cosinusoidal potential field. The nearby cluster Collinder 464 also displays unusually large tidal effects consistent with those expected for a cosinusoidal potential. A standard Newtonian version of the Virial theorem for star clusters yields very reasonable masses (∼3 × 10 11 M ⊙ and ∼4 × 10 11 M ⊙ ) for the Milky Way and M31 subgroups of the Local Group, respectively. A cosinusoidal relation should yield identical results.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".