MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057429525 · doi:10.1086/309035

Probing the Magnetic Field with Molecular Ion Spectra. II.

2000· article· en· W2057429525 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Houde, R. Peng, T. G. Phillips, Pierre Bastien, Hiroshige Yoshida

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpectral lineIonMolecular cloudLine (geometry)Magnetic fieldAstrophysicsPhysicsField (mathematics)Atomic physicsAstronomyStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present further observational evidence in support of our earlier proposal for detecting the presence of the magnetic field in molecular clouds by comparing spectra of molecular ions with those of neutral molecules. The ion lines tend to be narrower and do not show the wings due to flows, when the magnetic field is sufficiently strong. We obtained spectra for the optically thin lines of the H 13 CN and H 13 CO + species in a sample of 10 molecular clouds and found the results to be in agreement with our previous observations of the main isotopic species, HCN and HCO + , made in OMC-1, OMC-2, OMC-3, and DR 21(OH), thus eliminating the possibility of optical depth effects playing a role in the ion line narrowing. HCS + was also detected in four of these star-forming regions. We also discuss previously published results by Benson et al. of N 2 H + detections in a large sample of dark clouds. We show that the similarity in line widths between ion and neutral species in their sample is consistent with the relatively small amount of turbulence and other flows observed in these clouds.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations61
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207