MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2086211578 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/700/1/10

DISPERSAL OF PROTOPLANETARY DISKS BY CENTRAL WIND STRIPPING

2009· article· en· W2086211578 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutflowAccretion (finance)PhotoevaporationEntrainment (biomusicology)Protoplanetary diskTurbulenceWind speedScale height

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a model for the dispersal of protoplanetary disks by winds from either the central star or the inner disk. These winds obliquely strike the flaring disk surface and strip away disk material by entraining it in an outward radial-moving flow at the wind–disk interface, which lies several disk scale heights above the midplane. The disk dispersal time depends on the entrainment velocity, v d = c s , at which disk material flows into this turbulent shear layer interface, where is a scale factor and c s is the local sound speed in the disk surface just below the entrainment layer. If ∼ 0.1, a likely upper limit, the dispersal time at 1 AU is ∼6 Myr for a disk with a surface density of 10 3 g cm −2 , a solar mass central star, and a wind with an outflow rate and terminal velocity v w = 200kms −1 . When compared with photoevaporation and viscous evolution, wind stripping can be a dominant mechanism only for the combination of low accretion rates (≲10 −8 M ☉ yr −1 ) and wind outflow rates approaching these accretion rates. This case is unusual since generally outflow rates are ≲0.1 of accretion rates.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies→French-language works237,207→