MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014620781 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/707/2/921

IRAS 16293: A “MAGNETIC” TALE OF TWO CORES

2009· article· en· W2014620781 on OpenAlexaff
Ramprasad Rao, J. M. Girart, Daniel P. Marrone, S. Lai, Scott Schnee

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtostarPhysicsAstrophysicsMagnetic fieldPolarization (electrochemistry)Submillimeter ArrayStar formationPerpendicularGeometryStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present polarization observations of the dust continuum emission from IRAS 16293 which is a Class 0 protostar and is known to have at least two components, source A and B. These measurements were conducted by the Submillimeter Array (SMA) at a frequency of ~341 GHz and with high angular resolution (~2-3 arcseconds). We find that the large scale global direction of the field, which is perpendicular to the observed polarization, appears to be along the dust ridge where the emission peaks. On smaller scales we find that the field structure is significantly different for the two components of the binary. The first component, source A, shows a magnetic field structure which is "hourglass" shaped as predicted from theoretical models of low mass star formation in the presence of strong magnetic fields. However, the other component, source B, shows a relatively ordered magnetic field with no evidence of any deformation. There is an observed decrease in polarization towards the center. Our calculations show that in IRAS 16293 the magnetic energy is stronger than the turbulent energy but is approximately similar to the centrifugal energy. Our results provide additional evidence to show that the two protostars appear to be in different stages during their evolution.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations122
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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