MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003018282 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/719/2/1104

A NEW SAMPLE OF VERY MASSIVE STAR FORMING COMPLEXES IN THE<i>SPITZER</i>GLIMPSE SURVEY

2010· article· en· W2003018282 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCMB cold spotStar formationKinetic energyBubbleStar (game theory)LuminosityLine (geometry)Radial velocityProper motion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine the 13 most luminous sources in the WMAP free–free map using the Spitzer GLIMPSE and Midcourse Space Experiment surveys to identify massive star formation complexes, emitting one-third of the Galactic free–free luminosity. We identify star-forming complexes (SFCs) by a combination of bubble morphology in 8 μm emission and radio recombination line radial velocities. We find 40 SFCs associated with our WMAP sources and determine unique distances up to 31. We interpret the bubbles as evidence for radial expansion. The radial velocity distribution for each source allows us to measure the intrinsic speed of a complex's expansion. This speed is consistent with the size and age of the bubbles. The high free–free luminosities, combined with negligible synchrotron emission, demonstrate that the bubbles are not driven by supernovae. The kinetic energy of the largest bubbles is a substantial fraction of that measured in the older superbubbles found by Heiles. We find that the energy injected into the interstellar medium by our bubbles is similar to that required to maintain turbulent motion in the gas disk inside 8 kpc. We report a number of new SFCs powered by massive ( M * > 10 4 M ☉ ) star clusters. We measure the scale height of the Galactic O stars to be h * = 35 ± 5 pc. We determine an empirical relationship between the 8 μm and free–free emission of the form F 8 μm ∝ F 2 ff . Finally, we find that the bubble geometry is more consistent with a spherical shell rather than a flattened disk.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.796

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations34
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207