MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065979430 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stt682

Turbulence-induced disc formation in strongly magnetized cloud cores

2013· article· en· W2065979430 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Seifried, Robi Banerjee, Ralph E. Pudritz, Ralf S. Klessen

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsProtostarTurbulenceAstrophysicsStar formationMagnetic fieldMolecular cloudAccretion (finance)Structure formationFragmentation (computing)MagnetohydrodynamicsMechanicsStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present collapse simulations of strongly magnetized, turbulent molecular cloud cores with masses ranging from 2.6 to 1000 M⊙ in order to study the influence of the initial conditions on the turbulence-induced disc formation mechanism proposed recently by Seifried et al. We find that Keplerian discs are formed in all cases independently of the core mass, the strength of turbulence or the presence of global rotation. The discs appear within a few kyr after the formation of the protostar, are 50–150 au in size, and have masses between 0.05 and a few 0.1 M⊙. During the formation of the discs the mass-to-flux ratio stays well below the critical value of 10 for Keplerian disc formation. Hence, flux-loss alone cannot explain the formation of Keplerian discs. The formation of rotationally supported discs at such early phases is rather due to the disordered magnetic field structure and due to turbulent motions in the surroundings of the discs, two effects lowering the classical magnetic braking efficiency. Binary systems occurring in the discs are mainly formed via the disc capturing mechanism rather than via disc fragmentation, which is largely suppressed by the presence of magnetic fields.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 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

Citations130
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207