MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4402543621 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2132

Regulating star formation in a magnetized disc galaxy

2024· article· en· W4402543621 on OpenAlexafffund
Hector Robinson, James Wadsley

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsAstronomyGalaxyStar (game theory)Star formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We use high-resolution magnetohydrodynamic simulations of isolated disc galaxies to investigate the co-evolution of magnetic fields with a self-regulated, star-forming interstellar medium (ISM). The simulations are conducted using the ramses adaptive mesh refinement code on the standard agora initial condition, with gas cooling, star formation, and feedback. We run galaxies with a variety of initial magnetic field strengths. The fields evolve and achieve approximate saturation within 500 Myr, but at different levels. The galaxies reach a quasi-steady state, with slowly declining star formation due to both gas consumption and increase in the field strength at intermediate ISM densities. We connect this behaviour to differences in the gas properties and overall structure of the galaxies. Stronger magnetic fields limit supernova bubble sizes. Different cases support the ISM using varying combinations of magnetic pressure, turbulence, and thermal energy. Initially, $\gtrsim\!\! 1\ \mu \mathrm{ G}$ magnetic fields evolve modestly and dominate support at all radii. Conversely, initially weaker fields grow through feedback and turbulence but never dominate the support. This is reflected in the stability of the gas disc. This interplay determines the overall distribution of star formation in each case. We conclude that an initially weak field can grow to produce a realistic model of a local disc galaxy, but starting with typically assumed field strengths ($\gtrsim\!\! 1\ \mu \mathrm{ G}$) will not.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research→French-language works237,207→