MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1989361110 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/781/2/73

SEARCHING FOR MAGNETIC FIELDS IN 11 WOLF-RAYET STARS: ANALYSIS OF CIRCULAR POLARIZATION MEASUREMENTS FROM ESPaDOnS

2014· article· en· W1989361110 on OpenAlexaffabout
A. de la Chevrotière, Nicole St‐Louis, A. F. J. Moffat

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre for Research in Astrophysics of Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsStarsAstrophysicsWolf–Rayet starNeutron starMagnetic fieldK-type main-sequence starAstronomyT Tauri star

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With recent detections of magnetic fields in some of their progenitor O stars, combined with known strong fields in their possible descendant neutron stars, it is natural to search for magnetic fields in Wolf–Rayet (WR) stars, despite the problems associated with the presence of winds enhanced by an order of magnitude over those of O stars. We continue our search among a sample of 11 bright WR stars following our introductory study in a previous paper of WR6 = EZ CMa using the spectropolarimeter ESPaDOnS at Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope, most of them in all four Stokes parameters. This sample includes six WN stars and five WC stars encompassing a range of spectral subclasses. Six are medium/long-period binaries and three show corotating interaction regions. We report no definite detections of a magnetic field in the winds in which the lines form (which is about the same distance from the center of the star as it is from the surface of the progenitor O star) for any of the eleven stars. Possible reasons and their implications are discussed. Nonetheless, the data show evidence supporting marginal detections for WR134, WR137, and WR138. According to the Bayesian analysis, the most probable field intensities are B wind ∼ 200, 130, and 80 G, respectively, with a 95.4% probability that the magnetic fields present in the observable parts of their stellar wind, if stronger, does not exceed G, ∼1500 G, and ∼1500 G, respectively. In the case of non-detections, we report an average field strength upper limit of G.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 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

Citations45
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→