MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087457606 · doi:10.1086/503824

High‐Mass Star Formation. II. The Mass Function of Submillimeter Clumps in M17

2006· article· en· W2087457606 on OpenAlexaff
Michael A. Reid, C. D. Wilson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsJames Clerk Maxwell TelescopeAstrophysicsInitial mass functionPower lawStar formationStellar massMass distributionMass ratioStarsAstronomyGalaxyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have mapped a ~5.5 × 5.5 pc portion of the M17 massive star-forming region in both 850 and 450 μm dust continuum emission using the Submillimeter Common-User Bolometer Array (SCUBA) on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope (JCMT). The maps reveal more than 100 dusty clumps with deconvolved linear sizes of ~0.05-0.2 pc and masses of ~0.8-120 M ☉ , most of which are not associated with known mid-infrared point sources. Fitting the clump mass function with a double power law gives a mean power-law exponent of α high = -2.4 ± 0.3 for the high-mass power law, consistent with the exponent of the Salpeter stellar mass function. We show that a lognormal clump mass distribution with a peak at ~4 M ☉ produces as good a fit to the clump mass function as does a double power law. This 4 M ☉ peak mass is well above the peak masses of both the stellar initial mass function and the mass function of clumps in low-mass star-forming regions. Despite the difference in intrinsic mass scale, the shape of the M17 clump mass function appears to be consistent with the shape of the core mass function in low-mass star-forming regions. Thus, we suggest that the clump mass function in high-mass star-forming regions may be a scaled up version of that in low-mass regions, instead of its extension to higher masses.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 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

Citations56
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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