The ALMaQUEST survey IX: the nature of the resolved star forming main sequence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We investigate the nature of the scaling relations between the surface density of star formation rate (ΣSFR), stellar mass (Σ*), and molecular gas mass ($\Sigma _{\rm H_2}$), aiming at distinguishing between the relations that are primary, i.e. more fundamental, and those which are instead an indirect by-product of the other relations. We use the ALMA-MaNGA QUEnching and STar formation survey and analyse the data by using both partial correlations and random forest regression techniques. We unambiguously find that the strongest intrinsic correlation is between ΣSFR and $\Sigma _{\rm H_2}$ (i.e. the resolved Schmidt–Kennicutt relation), followed by the correlation between $\Sigma _{\rm H_2}$ and Σ* (resolved molecular gas main sequence, rMGMS). Once these two correlations are taken into account, we find that there is no evidence for any intrinsic correlation between ΣSFR and Σ*, implying that star formation rate (SFR) is entirely driven by the amount of molecular gas, while its dependence on stellar mass (i.e. the resolved star forming main sequence, rSFMS) simply emerges as a consequence of the relationship between molecular gas and stellar mass.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".