DERIVING THE GLOBAL STRUCTURE OF THE GALACTIC MAGNETIC FIELD FROM FARADAY ROTATION MEASURES OF EXTRAGALACTIC SOURCES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We made use of the two latest sets of rotation measures (RMs) of extragalactic radio sources, namely the NRAO VLA Sky Survey rotation measures catalog and a compilation by Kronberg and Newton-McGee, to infer the global structure of the Galactic magnetic field (GMF). We have checked that these two data sets are mutually consistent. Given the existence of clear patterns in the all-sky RM distributions we considered GMF models consisting of two components: disk (spiral or ring) and halo. The parameters of these components were determined by fitting different model field geometries to the observed RMs. We found that the model consisting of a symmetric (with respect to the Galactic plane) spiral disk and antisymmetric halo fits the data best and reproduces the observed distribution of RMs over the sky very well. We confirm that ring disk models are disfavored. Our results favor small pitch angles around ∼ − 5° and an increased vertical scale of electron distribution, in agreement with some recent studies. Based on our fits, we select two benchmark models suitable for studies of cosmic ray propagation, including cosmic rays at ultrahigh energies.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".