MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1994210724 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/797/2/74

TESTING MAGNETIC FIELD MODELS FOR THE CLASS 0 PROTOSTAR L1527

2014· article· en· W1994210724 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtostarPolarization (electrochemistry)Magnetic fieldPolarimetryStokes parametersMolecular cloudCore (optical fiber)Field (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the Class 0 protostar L1527 we compare 131 polarization vectors from SCUPOL/JCMT, SHARP/CSO, and TADPOL/CARMA observations with the corresponding model polarization vectors of four ideal-MHD, nonturbulent, cloud core collapse models. These four models differ by their initial magnetic fields before collapse; two initially have aligned fields (strong and weak) and two initially have orthogonal fields (strong and weak) with respect to the rotation axis of the L1527 core. Only the initial weak orthogonal field model produces the observed circumstellar disk within L1527. This is a characteristic of nearly all ideal-MHD, nonturbulent, core collapse models. In this paper we test whether this weak orthogonal model also has the best agreement between its magnetic field structure and that inferred from the polarimetry observations of L1527. We found that this is not the case; based on the polarimetry observations, the most favored model of the four is the weak aligned model. However, this model does not produce a circumstellar disk, so our result implies that a nonturbulent, ideal-MHD global collapse model probably does not represent the core collapse that has occurred in L1527. Our study also illustrates the importance of using polarization vectors covering a large area of a cloud core to determine the initial magnetic field orientation before collapse; the inner core magnetic field structure can be highly altered by a collapse, and so measurements from this region alone can give unreliable estimates of the initial field configuration before collapse.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.243
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 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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies→French-language works237,207→