↓ Skip to main content

A low pre-infall mass for the Carina dwarf galaxy from disequilibrium modelling

Overview of attention for article published in Nature Communications, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (71st percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users

Readers on

mendeley
16 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
A low pre-infall mass for the Carina dwarf galaxy from disequilibrium modelling
Published in
Nature Communications, July 2015
DOI 10.1038/ncomms8599
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Dark matter-only simulations of galaxy formation predict many more subhalos around a Milky Way-like galaxy than the number of observed satellites. Proposed solutions require the satellites to inhabit dark matter halos with masses 10(9)-10(10 )Msun at the time they fell into the Milky Way. Here we use a modelling approach, independent of cosmological simulations, to obtain a pre-infall mass of Msun for one of the Milky Way's satellites: Carina. This determination of a low halo mass for Carina can be accommodated within the standard model only if galaxy formation becomes stochastic in halos below ∼10(10 )Msun. Otherwise Carina, the eighth most luminous Milky Way dwarf, would be expected to inhabit a significantly more massive halo. The implication of this is that a population of 'dark dwarfs' should orbit the Milky Way: halos devoid of stars and yet more massive than many of their visible counterparts.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 16 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 6%
Unknown 15 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 38%
Student > Master 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 13%
Unspecified 1 6%
Other 2 13%
Unknown 1 6%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 13 81%
Unspecified 1 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Unknown 1 6%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 July 2015.
All research outputs
#8,324,718
of 29,482,654 outputs
Outputs from Nature Communications
#51,451
of 72,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,791
of 283,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Nature Communications
#498
of 796 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,482,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 72,056 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 52.0. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 283,336 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 796 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.