MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058380298 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/743/1/91

RADIATION-HYDRODYNAMIC SIMULATIONS OF PROTOSTELLAR OUTFLOWS: SYNTHETIC OBSERVATIONS AND DATA COMPARISONS

2011· article· en· W2058380298 on OpenAlexaff
Stella S. R. Offner, Eve J. Lee, Alyssa Goodman, Héctor G. Arce

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersHarvard UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsRadiationAstrophysicsProtostarAstronomyStar formationOpticsStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present results from three-dimensional, self-gravitating, radiation-hydrodynamic simulations of low-mass protostellar outflows. We construct synthetic observations in 12 CO in order to compare with observed outflows and evaluate the effects of beam resolution and outflow orientation on inferred outflow properties. To facilitate the comparison, we develop a quantitative prescription for measuring outflow opening angles. Using this prescription, we demonstrate that, in both simulations and synthetic observations, outflow opening angles broaden with time similarly to observed outflows. However, the interaction between the outflowing gas and the turbulent core envelope produces significant asymmetry between the redshifted and blueshifted outflow lobes. We find that applying a velocity cutoff may result in outflow masses that are underestimated by a factor five or more, and masses derived from optically thick CO emission further underpredict the mass of the high-velocity gas by a factor of 5-10. Derived excitation temperatures indicate that outflowing gas is hotter than the ambient gas with temperature rising over time, which is in agreement with the simulation gas temperatures. However, excitation temperatures are otherwise not well correlated with the actual gas temperature.

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 score0.538
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations74
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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