Helical fields and filamentary molecular clouds -- II. Axisymmetric stability and fragmentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Paper I (this issue), we constructed models of filamentary molecular clouds that are truncated by a realistic external pressure and contain a rather general helical magnetic field. We address the stability of our models to gravitational fragmentation and axisymmetric magnetohydrodynamically driven instabilities. By calculating the dominant modes of axisymmetric instability, we determine the dominant length-scales and growth rates for fragmentation. We find that the role of pressure truncation is to decrease the growth rate of gravitational instabilities by decreasing the self-gravitating mass per unit length. Purely poloidal and toroidal fields also help to stabilize filamentary clouds against fragmentation. The overall effect of helical fields is to stabilize gravity-driven modes, so that the growth rates are significantly reduced below what is expected for unmagnetized clouds. However, magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) ‘sausage’ instabilities are triggered in models in which the toroidal flux to mass ratio exceeds the poloidal flux to mass ratio by more than a factor of |2. We find that observed filaments appear to lie in a physical regime where the growth rates of both gravitational fragmentation and axisymmetric MHD-driven modes are at a minimum.
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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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.
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".