Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We investigate the effects of halo kinematics on the dynamics of stellar discs by simulating the evolution of isolated disc–halo systems from equilibrium initial conditions. Our main results come from four simulations where the initial disc is identical and the halo is either treated as a rigid potential or is ‘live’ with isotropic orbits or orbits that preferentially rotate with or counter to the disc. We confirm previous results that bar formation is more vigorous in models with a live halo than a rigid one and is further enhanced when halo orbits preferentially rotate with the disc. We discuss two types of buckling events with different symmetries about the mid-plane, one that occurs just as the bar is forming and the other well after the bar has been established. We also show that warps are most easily excited and maintained when the halo is counter-rotating with the disc, in agreement with theoretical predictions. Our most novel result is the discovery of a rotating halo instability, which causes the disc and halo cusp to spiral outward from the centre-of-mass of the system whether the halo rotates with the disc or counter to it and also occurs in a disc–bulge–halo system that does not form a bar. We provide a heuristic linear model that captures the essential dynamics of the instability.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".