MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033174427 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/749/2/168

IN SITU FORMATION OF SgrA* STARS VIA DISK FRAGMENTATION: PARENT CLOUD PROPERTIES AND THERMODYNAMICS

2012· article· en· W2033174427 on OpenAlexaff
Michela Mapelli, T. Hayfield, Lucio Mayer, James Wadsley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsMolecular cloudStar formationStarsGalactic CenterSupermassive black holeAccretion (finance)AstronomySolar massRadiative transferGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The formation of the massive young stars surrounding SgrA* is still an open question. In this paper, we simulate the infall of a turbulent molecular cloud toward the Galactic Center (GC). We adopt two different cloud masses (4.3 × 104 M sun and 1.3 × 105 M sun). We run five simulations: the gas is assumed to be isothermal in four runs, whereas radiative cooling is included in the fifth run. In all the simulations, the molecular cloud is tidally disrupted, spirals toward the GC, and forms a small, dense, and eccentric disk around SgrA*. With high-resolution simulations, we follow the fragmentation of the gaseous disk. Star candidates form in a ring at ~0.1-0.4 pc from the supermassive black hole and have moderately eccentric orbits (e ~ 0.2-0.4), in good agreement with the observations. The mass function of star candidates is top-heavy only if the local gas temperature is high (gsim 100 K) during the star formation and if the parent cloud is sufficiently massive (gsim 105 M sun). Thus, this study indicates that the infall of a massive molecular cloud is a viable scenario for the formation of massive stars around SgrA*, provided that the gas temperature is kept sufficiently high (gsim 100 K).

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.771
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations83
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207