An observational evaluation of magnetic confinement in the winds of BA supergiants★
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magnetic wind confinement has been proposed as one explanation for the complex wind structures of supergiant stars of spectral types B and A. Observational investigation of this hypothesis was undertaken using high-resolution (λ/Δλ ∼ 65 000) circular polarization (Stokes V) spectra of six late B- and early A-type supergiants (β Ori, B8Iae; 4 Lac, B9Iab; η Leo, A0Ib; HR1040, A0Ib; α Cyg, A2Iae; ν Cep, A2Iab), obtained with the instruments ESPaDOnS and Narval at the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope and the Bernard Lyot Telescope. Least-squares deconvolution (LSD) analysis of the Stokes V spectra of all stars yields no evidence of a magnetic field, with best longitudinal field 1σ error bars ranging from ∼0.5 to ∼4.5 G for most stars. Spectrum synthesis analysis of the LSD profiles using Bayesian inference yields an upper limit with 95.4 per cent credibility on the polar strength of the (undetected) surface dipole fields of individual stars ranging from 3 to 30 G. These results strongly suggest that magnetic wind confinement due to organized dipolar magnetic fields is not the origin of the wind variability of BA supergiant stars. Upper limits for magnetic spots may also be inconsistent with magnetic wind confinement in the limit of large spot size and filling factor, depending on the adopted wind parameters. Therefore, if magnetic spots are responsible for the wind variability of BA supergiant stars, they likely occupy a small fraction of the photosphere.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".