MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965697993 · doi:10.1086/504371

The Distribution of Ortho–H<sub>2</sub>D<sup>+</sup>(1<sub>1,0</sub>–1<sub>1,1</sub>) in L1544: Tracing the Deuteration Factory in Prestellar Cores

2006· article· en· W1965697993 on OpenAlexaff
C. Vastel, P. Caselli, C. Ceccarelli, T. G. Phillips, M. C. Wiedner, R. Peng, Martin Houde, C. Dominik

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeuteriumPhysicsRADIUSAtomic physicsAstrochemistryHydrogenOrder (exchange)ChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)AstrophysicsInterstellar medium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prestellar cores are unique laboratories for studying the chemical and physical conditions preceding star formation. We observed the prestellar core L1544 in the fundamental transition of ortho-H_(2)D^(+)(1_(1,0)-1_(1,1)) at different positions over 100" and found a strong correlation between its abundance and the CO depletion factor. We also present a tentative detection of the fundamental transition of para-D_(2)H^+ (1_(1,0)-1_(0,1)) at the dust emission peak. Maps in N_(2)H^+, N_(2)D^+, HCO^+, and DCO^+ are used and interpreted with the aid of a spherically symmetric chemical model that predicts the column densities and abundances of these species as a function of radius. The correlation between the observed deuterium fractionation of H^(+)_3, N_(2)H^+, and HCO^+ and the observed integrated CO depletion factor across the core can be reproduced by this chemical model. In addition, a simpler model is used to study the H_(2)D^+ ortho-to-para ratio. We conclude that, in order to reproduce the observed ortho-H_(2)D^+ observations, the grain radius should be larger than 0.3 μm.&#13;\n

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations94
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207