← Back to cohort
Planck intermediate results XXXIV. The magnetic field structure in the Rosette Nebula
N. Aghanim, M. I. R. Alves, M. Arnaud, D. Arzoumanian, J. Aumont, C. Baccigalupi, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, E. Battaner, K. Benabed, A. Benoit-Lévy, J.-P. Bernard, M. Bersanelli, P. Bielewicz, A. Bonaldi, L. Bonavera, J. R. Bond, J. Borrill, F. R. Bouchet, F. Boulanger, A. Bracco, C. Burigana, E. Calabrese, J.-F. Cardoso, A. Catalano, A. Chamballu, H. C. Chiang, P. R. Christensen, S. Colombi, L. P. L. Colombo, C. Combet, F. Couchot, B. P. Crill, A. Curto, F. Cuttaia, L. Danese, R. D. Davies, R. J. Davis, P. de Bernardis, A. de Rosa, G. de Zotti, C. Dickinson, J. M. Diego, H. Dole, S. Donzelli, O. Doré, M. Douspis, A. Ducout, X. Dupac, G. Efstathiou, F. Elsner, T. A. Enßlin, H. K. Eriksen, É. Falgarone, K. Ferrière, F. Finelli⋆, O. Forni, M. Frailis, A. A. Fraisse, E. Franceschi, A. Frejsel, S. Galeotta, S. Galli, K. Ganga, T. Ghosh, M. Giard, E. Gjerløw, J. González-Nuevo, K. M. Górski, A. Gregorio, A. Gruppuso, V. Guillet, F. K. Hansen, D. Hanson, D. L. Harrison, S. Henrot–Versillé, D. Herranz, S. R. Hildebrandt, E. Hivon, W. A. Holmes, A. Hornstrup, W. Hovest, K. M. Huffenberger, G. Hurier, A. H. Jaffe, T. R. Jaffe, J. Jewell, M. Juvela, R. Keskitalo, T. S. Kisner, J. Knoche, M. Kunz, H. Kurki‐Suonio, G. Lagache, J.-M. Lamarre, A. Lasenby, M. Lattanzi, C. R. Lawrence, R. Leonardi, F. Levrier, M. Liguori, P. B. Lilje, M. Linden-Vørnle, M. López-Caniego, P. M. Lubin, J. F. Macías–Pérez, B. Maffei, D. Maino, N. Mandolesi, A. Mangilli, M. Maris, P. G. Martin, E. Martínez-González, S. Masi, S. Matarrese, A. Melchiorri, L. Mendes, A. Mennella, M. Migliaccio, M.-A. Miville-Deschênes, A. Moneti, L. Montier, G. Morgante, D. Mortlock, A. Moss, D. Munshi, J. A. Murphy, P. Naselsky, F. Nati, P. Natoli, C. B. Netterfield, F. Noviello, D. Novikov, I. Novikov, Niels Oppermann, L. Pagano, F. Pajot, R. Paladini, D. Paoletti, F. Pasian, G. Patanchon, O. Perdereau, V. Pettorino, F. Piacentini, M. Piat, D. Pietrobon, S. Plaszczynski, É. Pointecouteau, G. Polenta, N. Ponthieu, G. W. Pratt, G. Prézeau, S. Prunet, J.‐L. Puget, R. Rébolo, M. Reinecke, M. Remazeilles, C. Renault, A. Renzi, I. Ristorcelli, G. Rocha, C. Rosset, M. Rossetti, G. Roudier, J. A. Rubiño-Martín, B. Rusholme, M. Sandri, D. Santos, M. Savelainen, G. Savini, D. Scott, J. D. Soler, L. D. Spencer, V. Stolyarov, D. Sutton, A.-S. Suur-Uski, J.-F. Sygnet, J. A. Tauber, L. Terenzi, L. Toffolatti, M. Tomasi, M. Tristram, J. Tuovinen, L. Valenziano, J. Väliviita, B. Van Tent, P. Vielva, F. Villa, L. A. Wade, B. D. Wandelt, I. K. Wehus, H. Wiesemeyer, D. Yvon, A. Zacchei
Bibliographic record
VenueORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaMinisterio de Ciencia e InnovaciónCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationChina Scholarship CouncilScience and Technology Facilities CouncilTekesCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesInstitut National de Physique Nucléaire et de Physique des ParticulesMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino SuperiorEuropean CommissionMax-Planck-GesellschaftUK Space AgencyScience Foundation Ireland
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsNebulaPlanckMagnetic fieldInterstellar mediumMolecular cloudGalactic planePolarization (electrochemistry)AstronomySkyStar formationLine-of-sightGalaxyStarsQuantum mechanics
Abstract
15 pages, 11 figures. Submitted to A&A
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.
metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.173
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.020 |
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation status
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.
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
Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes