MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989990410 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/6/173

TESTING TRIGGERED STAR FORMATION IN SIX H II REGIONS

2012· article· en· W1989990410 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotometry (optics)Star formationYoung stellar objectGravitational collapseRadiative transferProtostarInfraredMolecular cloud

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated six H II regions with infrared, bright rimmed bubble or cometary morphology, in search of quantitative evidence for triggered star formation, both collect and collapse and radiatively driven implosion. We identified and classified 458 Young Stellar Objects (YSOs) in and around the H II regions. YSOs were determined by fitting a collection of radiative transfer model spectral energy distributions (SEDs) to infrared photometry for a large sample of point sources. We determined areas where there exist enhanced populations of relatively unevolved YSOs on the bright rims of these regions, suggesting that star formation has been triggered there. We further investigated the physical properties of the regions by using radio continuum emission as a proxy for ionizing flux powering the H II regions, and 13CO (1-0) observations to measure masses and gravitational stability of molecular clumps. We used an analytical model of collect and collapse triggered star formation, as well as a simulation of radiatively driven implosion, and thus we compare the observed properties of the molecular gas with those predicted in the triggering scenarios. Notably, those regions in our sample that show evidence of cometary, or "blister," morphology are more likely to show evidence of triggering. Keywords: HII regions -- ISM: bubbles -- Stars: formation -- Stars: protostars

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.332
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.222 · 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.

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

Citations30
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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