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 toward 23 massive star-forming regions previously known to contain molecular outflows and ultracompact H II regions. We detected SiO toward 14 sources and suggest that the nondetections 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 toward 17 sources in the same tuning as HCO + . We detected HCO + toward all sources, and suggest that it is tracing infall in nine cases. For seven infall candidates, we estimate mass infall rates between 1 × 10 -2 and 2 × 10 -5 M ☉ 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 H II 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 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.013
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 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

Citations89
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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