MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095058272 · doi:10.1086/518760

Outflow and Infall in a Sample of Massive Star‐forming Regions

2007· article· en· W2095058272 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtostarOutflowJames Clerk Maxwell TelescopeAccretion (finance)Star formationHigh massAccretion discStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present single pointing observations of SiO, HCO$^+$ and H$^{13}$CO$^+$ from the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope towards 23 massive star forming regions previously known to contain molecular outflows and ultracompact HII regions. We detected SiO towards 14 sources and suggest that the non-detections in the other nine sources could be due to those outflows being older and without ongoing shocks to replenish the SiO. We serendipitously detected SO$_2$ towards 17 sources in the same tuning as HCO$^+$. We detected HCO$^+$ towards all sources, and suggest that it is tracing infall in nine cases. For seven infall candidates, we estimate mass infall rates between 1$\times10^{-2}$ and 2$\times10^{-5}$ M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$. Seven sources show both SiO detections (young outflows) and HCO$^+$ infall signatures. We also find that the abundance of H$^{13}$CO$^+$ tends to increase along with the abundance of SiO in sources for which we could determine abundances. We discuss these results with respect to current theories of massive star formation via accretion. From this survey, we suggest that perhaps both models of ionized accretion and halted accretion may be important in describing the evolution of a massive protostar (or protostars) beyond the formation of an HII region.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.303

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations89
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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