MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073845444 · doi:10.1086/508679

The Global Evolution of Giant Molecular Clouds. I. Model Formulation and Quasi‐Equilibrium Behavior

2006· article· en· W2073845444 on OpenAlexaff
Mark R. Krumholz, Christopher D. Matzner, Christopher F. McKee

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsMolecular cloudGalaxyStar formationVirial theoremPhotoevaporationStarsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present semianalytic dynamical models for giant molecular clouds evolving under the influence of H II regions launched by newborn star clusters. In contrast to previous work, we neither assume that clouds are in virial or energetic equilibrium, nor do we ignore the effects of star formation feedback. The clouds, which we treat as spherical, can expand and contract homologously. Photoionization drives mass ejection; the recoil of cloud material both stirs turbulent motions and leads to an effective confining pressure. The balance between these effects and the decay of turbulent motions through isothermal shocks determines clouds' dynamical and energetic evolution. We find that for realistic values of the rates of turbulent dissipation, photoevaporation, and energy injection by H II regions, the massive clouds where most molecular gas in the Galaxy resides live for a few crossing times, in good agreement with recent observational estimates that large clouds in Local Group galaxies survive roughly 20-30 Myr. During this time clouds remain close to equilibrium, with virial parameters of 1-3 and column densities near 10 22 H atoms cm -2 , also in agreement with observed cloud properties. Over their lives they convert 5%-10% of their mass into stars, after which point most clouds are destroyed when a large H II region unbinds them. In contrast, small clouds like those found in the solar neighborhood only survive ~1 crossing time before being destroyed.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations198
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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