MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082183146 · doi:10.1086/421996

A Survey for Infall Motions toward Starless Cores. III. CS (3–2) and DCO <sup>+</sup> (2–1) Observations

2004· article· en· W2082183146 on OpenAlexaff
Chang Won Lee, Philip C. Myers, R. Plume

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsSpectral lineChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)AstronomyChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present CS(3-2) and DCO+(2-1) observations of 94 starless cores and compare the results with previous CS(2-1) and N2H+(1-0) observations to study inward motions in starless cores. The velocity shifts of the CS(3-2) and (2-1) lines with respect to N2H+ correlate well with each other and have similar distributions. This implies that, in many cores, systematic inward motions of gaseous material may occur over a range of density of at least a factor 4. We identify 18 infall candidates based on observations of CS(3-2), CS(2-1), DCO+(2-1) and N2H+(1-0). The eight best candidates, L1355, L1498, L1521F, L1544, L158, L492, L694-2, and L1155C-1, each show at least four indications of infall asymmetry and no counter-indications. Fits of the spectra to a 2-layer radiative transfer model in ten infall candidates suggest that the median effective line-of-sight speed of the inward-moving gas is ~0.07 km/s for CS (3-2) and ~0.04 km/s for CS(2-1). Considering that the optical depth obtained from the fits is usually smaller in CS(3-2) than in (2-1) line, this may imply that CS(3-2) usually traces inner denser gas in higher inward motions than CS(2-1). However, it is also possible that this conclusion is not representative of all starless core infall candidates, due to the statistically small number analyzed here. Further line observations will be useful to test this conclusion.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations82
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal Supplement SeriesSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207