MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965177078 · doi:10.1088/0067-0049/209/2/26

OVERVIEW OF THE MASSIVE YOUNG STAR-FORMING COMPLEX STUDY IN INFRARED AND X-RAY (MYStIX) PROJECT

2013· article· en· W1965177078 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsStar formationInfraredCluster (spacecraft)StarsHigh massStar (game theory)Infrared astronomyStar cluster

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Massive Young Star-Forming Complex Study in Infrared and X-ray (MYStIX) seeks to characterize 20 OB-dominated young clusters and their environs at distances d ⩽ 4 kpc using imaging detectors on the Chandra X-ray Observatory , Spitzer Space Telescope , and the United Kingdom InfraRed Telescope. The observational goals are to construct catalogs of star-forming complex stellar members with well-defined criteria and maps of nebular gas (particularly of hot X-ray-emitting plasma) and dust. A catalog of MYStIX Probable Complex Members with several hundred OB stars and 31,784 low-mass pre-main sequence stars is assembled. This sample and related data products will be used to seek new empirical constraints on theoretical models of cluster formation and dynamics, mass segregation, OB star formation, star formation triggering on the periphery of H ii regions, and the survivability of protoplanetary disks in H ii regions. This paper gives an introduction and overview of the project, covering the data analysis methodology and application to two star-forming regions: NGC 2264 and the Trifid Nebula.

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)0.005
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.008

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations132
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal Supplement SeriesSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207