MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2055501207 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/764/2/171

SEARCH FOR A MAGNETIC FIELD VIA CIRCULAR POLARIZATION IN THE WOLF-RAYET STAR EZ CMa

2013· article· en· W2055501207 on OpenAlexaffabout
A. de la Chevrotière, Nicole St‐Louis, A. F. J. Moffat

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre for Research in Astrophysics of Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsStokes parametersCircular polarizationAstrophysicsPolarization (electrochemistry)Magnetic fieldZeeman effectPolarization in astronomyStarsScatteringLinear polarizationOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on the first deep, direct search for a magnetic field via the circular polarization of Zeeman splitting in a Wolf-Rayet (W-R) star. Using the highly efficient ESPaDOnS spectropolarimeter at the Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope, we observed at three different epochs one of the best W-R candidates in the sky expected to harbor a magnetic field, the bright, highly variable WN4 star EZ CMa = WR6 = HD 50896. We looked for the characteristic circular polarization (Stokes V ) pattern in strong emission lines that would arise as a consequence of a global, rotating magnetic field with a split monopole configuration. We also obtained nearly simultaneous linear polarization spectra (Stokes Q and U ), which are dominated by electron scattering, most likely from a flattened wind with large-scale corotating structures. As the star rotates with a period of 3.766 days, our view of the wind changes, which in turn affects the value of the linear polarization in lines versus continuum at the ∼0.2% level. Depending on the epoch of observation, our Stokes V data were affected by significant crosstalk from Stokes Q and U to V . We removed this spurious signal from the circular polarization data and experimented with various levels of spectral binning to increase the signal-to-noise ratio of our data. In the end, no magnetic field is unambiguously detected in EZ CMa. Assuming that the star is intrinsically magnetic and harbors a split monopole configuration, we find an upper limit of B ∼ 100 G for the intensity of its field in the line-forming regions of the stellar wind.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 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

Citations29
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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