MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024303055 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/750/1/30

A HYBRID SCENARIO FOR THE FORMATION OF BROWN DWARFS AND VERY LOW MASS STARS

2012· article· en· W2024303055 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrown dwarfStarsLow MassStellar massStellar evolution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a calculation of protostellar disk formation and evolution in which gaseous clumps (essentially, the first Larson cores formed via disk fragmentation) are ejected from the disk during the early stage of evolution. This is a universal process related to the phenomenon of ejection in multiple systems of point masses. However, it occurs in our model entirely due to the interaction of compact, gravitationally-bound gaseous clumps and is free from the smoothing-length uncertainty that is characteristic of models using sink particles. Clumps that survive ejection span a mass range of 0.08--0.35 $M_\odot$, and have ejection velocities $0.8 \pm 0.35$ km s$^{-1}$, which are several times greater than the escape speed. We suggest that, upon contraction, these clumps can form substellar or low-mass stellar objects with notable disks, or even close-separation very-low-mass binaries. In this hybrid scenario, allowing for ejection of clumps rather than finished protostars/proto--brown-dwarfs, disk formation and the low velocity dispersion of low-mass objects are naturally explained, while it is also consistent with the observation of isolated low-mass clumps that are ejection products. We conclude that clump ejection and the formation of isolated low mass stellar and substellar objects is a common occurrence, with important implications for understanding the initial mass function, the brown dwarf desert, and the formation of stars in all environments and epochs.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations100
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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