MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2035472636 · doi:10.1086/588577

An Improved Magnetic Map of the Milky Way, with the Circularly Orbiting Gas and Magnetic Field Lines Crossing the Dusty Stellar Spiral Arms

2008· article· en· W2035472636 on OpenAlexaff
J. P. Vallée

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsMilky WaySpiral galaxyAstrophysicsGalaxyAstronomyPulsarCircular orbitGalactic Center

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whether the Galactic magnetic field lines would or would not cross the spiral arms is a matter of debate. To reach the solution to this question, we first need rotation measure data over a wide range of longitudes, as well as a good distance estimate of the Sun's distance to the Galactic center (GC), and also the locations for the spiral arms (including observed tangents to the spiral arms). Six strong arguments that the magnetic field follows the gas in its circular orbit around the GC are put forward, allowing a consistent symbiosis between theory and observation. An analysis of a set of 554 pulsar rotation measure data currently available confirms and improves on an earlier finding that the Milky Way has a large-scale clockwise magnetic field, as seen from the north Galactic pole, except for a small anticlockwise ring near a radial distance of 5 kpc from the GC. Our pulsar results here broadly agree with the magnetic map of Brown and coworkers, which used rotation measure data from 149 quasars and galaxies in the radial range 12 kpc > r gal > 3.8 kpc (for R ☉ = 7.6 kpc).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations47
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→