MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6891816786 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0801.2971

H-alpha Kinematics of the SINGS Nearby Galaxies Survey. II

2008· preprint· en· W6891816786 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2008
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKinematicsGalaxyGalaxy rotation curveRotation (mathematics)Dark matterTully–Fisher relationBaryon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the second part of an H-alpha kinematics follow-up survey of the Spitzer Infrared Nearby Galaxies Survey (SINGS) sample. The aim of this program is to shed new light on the role of baryons and their kinematics and on the dark/luminous matter relation in the star forming regions of galaxies, in relation with studies at other wavelengths. The data for 37 galaxies are presented. The observations were made using Fabry-Perot interferometry with the photon-counting camera FaNTOmM on 4 different telescopes, namely the Canada-France-Hawaii 3.6m, the ESO La Silla 3.6m, the William Herschel 4.2m, and the Observatoire du mont Megantic 1.6m telescopes. The velocity fields are computed using custom IDL routines designed for an optimal use of the data. The kinematical parameters and rotation curves are derived using the GIPSY software. It is shown that non-circular motions associated with galactic bars affect the kinematical parameters fitting and the velocity gradient of the rotation curves. This leads to incorrect determinations of the baryonic and dark matter distributions in the mass models derived from those rotation curves.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.134 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207