Searching for Milky Way twins: Radial abundance distribution as a strict criterion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We search for Milky Way-like galaxies among a sample of approximately 500 galaxies. The characteristics we considered of the candidate galaxies are the following: stellar mass M ⋆ , optical radius R 25 , rotation velocity V rot , central oxygen abundance (O/H) 0 , and abundance at the optical radius (O/H) R 25 . If the values of R 25 and M ⋆ of the galaxy were close to that of the Milky Way, then the galaxy was referred to as a structural Milky Way analogue (sMWA). The oxygen abundance at a given radius of a galaxy is defined by the evolution of that region (astration level, that is, the fraction of gas converted into stars, as well as gas exchange with the surroundings), and we then assumed that the similarity of (O/H) 0 and (O/H) R 25 in two galaxies suggests a similarity in their (chemical) evolution. If the values of (O/H) 0 and (O/H) R 25 in the galaxy were close to that of the Milky Way, then the galaxy was referred to as an evolutionary Milky Way analogue (eMWA). If the galaxy was simultaneously an eMWA and sMWA, then the galaxy was considered a Milky Way twin. We find that the position of the Milky Way on the (O/H) 0 –(O/H) R 25 diagram shows a large deviation from the general trend in the sense that the (O/H) R 25 in the Milky Way is appreciably lower than in other galaxies of similar (O/H) 0 . This feature of the Milky Way evidences that its (chemical) evolution is not typical. We identify four galaxies (NGC 3521, NGC 4651, NGC 2903, and MaNGA galaxy M-8341-09101) that are simultaneously sMWA and eMWA and can therefore be considered as Milky Way twins. In previous studies, Milky Way-like galaxies were selected using structural and morphological characteristics, that is, sMWAs were selected. We find that the abundances at the centre and at the optical radius (evolutionary characteristics) provide a stricter criterion for selecting real Milky Way twins.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".