MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417433182 · doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ae2c8b

Strong Bars, Strong Inflow: The Effect of Bar Strength on Gas Inflow

2025· article· W4417433182 on OpenAlexaff
Maelle Magnan, Tobias Géron, Izzy L. Garland, Chris Lintott, Jason Shingirai Makechemu, David O’Ryan, Brooke Simmons, Rebecca Smethurst

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Notes of the AAS · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBar (unit)GalaxyBarred spiral galaxyVelocity dispersionDispersion (optics)Galaxy rotation curveInflow

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Stellar bars are elongated structures in disk galaxies that can torque and funnel gas inward, influencing galaxy evolution. While strong bars are known to induce rapid inflow, the impact of weaker bars remains less certain. We collected spectroscopic data using the Isaac Newton Telescope to analyze 18 nearby galaxies (strongly barred, weakly barred, and unbarred) drawn from Galaxy Zoo DESI. We obtained spatial profiles of equivalent width (EW) and ionized gas velocity dispersion by fitting Gaussian profiles to the H α emission line. Strongly barred galaxies exhibit a distinctive three-peaked EW[H α ] structure, consistent with inward funneling of gas. Weakly barred systems lack this pattern, which suggests limited inflow. Velocity dispersion distributions further distinguish the bar types, with strongly barred galaxies showing significantly higher values than weakly barred and unbarred systems. These results suggest that strong bars drive gas inflow, while weak bars exert a limited dynamical influence.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Notes of the AASSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207