MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031117379 · doi:10.1103/physrevlett.91.251301

Are Cluster Magnetic Fields Primordial?

2003· article· en· W2031117379 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSolar and Space Plasma Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsMagnetic fieldFaraday effectCluster (spacecraft)AstrophysicsCOSMIC cancer databaseExtant taxonFaraday cageCosmic rayComputational physicsQuantum mechanicsBiologyEvolutionary biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present results of a detailed and fully nonlinear numerical and analytical investigation of magnetic field evolution from the very earliest cosmic epochs to the present. We find that, under reasonable assumptions concerning the efficiency of a putative magnetogenesis era during cosmic phase transitions, surprisingly strong magnetic fields ${10}^{\ensuremath{-}13}--{10}^{\ensuremath{-}11}\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{G}$ on comparatively small scales $100\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}--10\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{k}\mathrm{p}\mathrm{c}$ may survive to the present. Building on prior numerical work on the evolution of magnetic fields during the course of gravitational collapse of a cluster, which indicates that precollapse fields of $\ensuremath{\sim}4\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}12}\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{G}$ extant on small scales may suffice to produce clusters with acceptable Faraday rotation measures, we argue that it seems possible for cluster magnetic fields to be entirely of primordial origin.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.474
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

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 head0.254
Teacher spread0.245 · 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