Young stellar population and ongoing star formation in the H ii complex Sh2-252
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, an extensive survey of the star-forming complex Sh2-252 has been undertaken with an aim to explore its hidden young stellar population as well as to understand the structure and star formation history for the first time. This complex is composed of five prominent embedded clusters associated with the subregions A, C, E, NGC 2175s and Teu 136. We used Two Micron All Sky Survey-near-infrared and Spitzer-Infrared Array Camera, Multiband Imaging Photometer for Spitzer photometry to identify and classify the young stellar objects (YSOs) by their infrared (IR) excess emission. Using the IR colour–colour criteria, we identified 577 YSOs, of which, 163 are Class I, 400 are Class II and 14 are transition disc YSOs, suggesting a moderately rich number of YSOs in this complex. Spatial distribution of the candidate YSOs shows that they are mostly clustered around the subregions in the western half of the complex, suggesting enhanced star formation activity towards its west. Using the spectral energy distribution and optical colour–magnitude diagram-based age analyses, we derived probable evolutionary status of the subregions of Sh2-252. Our analysis shows that the region A is the youngest (∼0.5 Myr), the regions B, C and E are of similar evolutionary stage (∼1–2 Myr) and the clusters NGC 2175s and Teu 136 are slightly evolved (∼2–3 Myr). Morphology of the region in the 1.1 mm map shows a semicircular shaped molecular shell composed of several clumps and YSOs bordering the western ionization front of Sh2-252. Our analyses suggest that next generation star formation is currently under way along this border and that possibly fragmentation of the matter collected during the expansion of the H ii region as one of the major processes is responsible for such stars. We observed the densest concentration of YSOs (mostly Class I, ∼0.5 Myr) at the western outskirts of the complex, within a molecular clump associated with water and methanol masers and we suggest that it is indeed a site of cluster formation at a very early evolutionary stage, sandwiched between the two relatively evolved CH ii regions A and B.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".