Stellar Rotation: A Clue to the Origin of High-Mass Stars?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the results of a study aimed at assessing whether low- and high-mass stars form similarly. Our approach is (1) to examine the observed projected rotational velocities among a large sample of newly formed stars spanning a range in mass between 0.2 and 50 M ⊙ and (2) to search for evidence of a discontinuity in rotational properties that might indicate a difference in the stellar formation process at some characteristic mass. Our database includes recently published values of v sin i for young intermediate- and low-mass stars in Orion, as well as new observations of O stars located in young clusters and OB associations. We find that the median of the quantity v obs / v c (observed rotational speed divided by equatorial breakup velocity) is typically about 0.15 and shows no evidence of a discontinuity over the full range of stellar masses, while the quantity J sin i / M (derived angular momentum per unit mass) exhibits a slow, monotonic rise ( J / M ∼ M 0.3 ) with increasing mass with no evidence of a discontinuity. We suggest that these observations are most simply interpreted as indicative of a single stellar formation and angular momentum regulation mechanism, one that results in rotation rates well below breakup and angular momenta per unit mass that differ systematically by no more than a factor of 3-4 over a mass range spanning a factor of 250.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".