MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2099312297 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/718/1/306

AN OBSERVED LACK OF SUBSTRUCTURE IN STARLESS CORES

2010· article· en· W2099312297 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Schnee, Melissa L. Enoch, Doug Johnstone, T. Culverhouse, E. M. Leitch, Daniel P. Marrone, Anneila I. Sargent

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaNational Research Council CanadaHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubstructureAstrophysicsBolometerPhysicsCore (optical fiber)Resolution (logic)AstronomyOpticsDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we present the results of a high resolution (5'') Combined Array for Research in Millimeter-wave Astronomy and Sunyaev–Zeldovich Array survey of the 3 mm continuum emission from 11 of the brightest (at 1.1 mm) starless cores in the Perseus molecular cloud. We detect 2 of the 11 cores, both of which are composed of single structures, and the median 3σ upper limit for the non-detections is 0.2 M ☉ in a ∼5'' beam. These results are consistent with, and as stringent as, the low detection rate of compact 3 mm continuum emission in dense cores in Perseus reported by Olmi et al. From the non-detection of multiple components in any of the 11 cores, we conclude that starless core mass functions derived from bolometer maps at resolutions range 10''–30'' (e.g., with MAMBO, SCUBA, or Bolocam) are unlikely to be significantly biased by the blending of lower mass cores with small separations. These observations provide additional evidence that the majority of starless cores in Perseus have inner density profiles shallower than r −2 .

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations59
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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