MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1987475110 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2275

Cluster formation in molecular clouds – I. Stellar populations, star formation rates and ionizing radiation

2013· article· en· W1987475110 on OpenAlexaff
Corey S. Howard, Ralph E. Pudritz, William E. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsStar formationRadiative transferStarsAccretion (finance)LuminosityStar clusterStellar massCluster (spacecraft)AstronomyGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a model for the radiative output of star clusters in the process of star formation suitable for use in hydrodynamical simulations of radiative feedback. Gas in a clump, defined as a region whose density exceeds 104 cm−3, is converted to stars via the random sampling of the Chabrier initial mass function. A star formation efficiency controls the rate of star formation. We have completed a suite of simulations which follow the evolution of accretion-fed clumps with initial masses ranging from 0 to 105 M⊙ and accretion rates ranging from 10−5 to 10−1 M⊙ yr−1. The stellar content is tracked over time which allows the aggregate luminosity, ionizing photon rate, number of stars and star formation rate (SFR) to be determined. For a fiducial clump of 104 M⊙, the luminosity is ∼4 × 106 L⊙ with an SFR of roughly 3 × 10−3 M⊙ yr−1. We identify two regimes in our model. The accretion-dominated regime obtains the majority of its gas through accretion and is characterized by an increasing SFR, while the reservoir-dominated regime has the majority of its mass present in the initial clump with a decreasing SFR. We show that our model can reproduce the expected number of O stars, which dominate the radiative output of the cluster. We find a nearly linear relationship between SFR and mass as seen in observations. We conclude that our model is an accurate and straightforward way to represent the output of clusters in hydrodynamical simulations with radiative feedback.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies→French-language works237,207→