MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020282587 · doi:10.1086/507320

The Burst Mode of Protostellar Accretion

2006· article· en· W2020282587 on OpenAlexaff
Eduard I. Vorobyov, Shantanu Basu

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtostarAstrophysicsPhysicsAccretion (finance)Angular momentumProtoplanetary diskAstronomyBurst mode (computing)Star formationGravitational instabilityPlanetStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present new numerical simulations in the thin disk approximation that characterize the burst mode of protostellar accretion. The burst mode begins upon the formation of a centrifugally balanced disk around a newly formed protostar. It comprises prolonged quiescent periods of low accretion rate (typically ≲10 -7 M ☉ yr -1 ) that are punctuated by intense bursts of accretion (typically ≳10 -4 M ☉ yr -1 , with duration ≲100 yr) during which most of the protostellar mass is accumulated. The accretion bursts are associated with the formation of dense protostellar/protoplanetary embryos, which are later driven onto the protostar by the gravitational torques that develop in the disk. Gravitational instability in the disk, driven by continuing infall from the envelope, is shown to be an effective means of transporting angular momentum outward and mass inward to the protostar. We show that the disk mass always remains significantly less than the central protostar's mass throughout this process. The burst phenomenon is robust enough to occur for a variety of initial values of rotation rate and frozen-in (supercritical) magnetic field and a variety of density-temperature relations. Even in cases where the bursts are nearly entirely suppressed, a moderate increase in cloud size or rotation rate can lead to vigorous burst activity. We conclude that most (if not all) protostars undergo a burst mode of evolution during their early accretion history, as inferred empirically from observations of FU Orionis variables.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations378
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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