MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105195643 · doi:10.1017/s1743921307009428

Submillimetre polarimetric observations of magnetic fields in star-forming regions

2007· article· en· W2105195643 on OpenAlexaff
A. Chrysostomou, Brenda C. Matthews

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Astronomical Union · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekScience Foundation IrelandScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMagnetic fieldPhysicsOutflowAstrophysicsJet (fluid)Star formationField (mathematics)Position anglePolarimetryTurbulenceOpticsStarsGalaxyScatteringMechanicsMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Submillimetre imaging polarimetry is one of the most powerful tools at present for studying magnetic fields in star-forming regions, and the only way to gain significant information on the structure of these fields. We present analysis of the largest sample (to date) of both high- and low-mass star-forming regions observed using this technique. A variety of magnetic field morphologies are observed, with no single field morphology favoured. Both the continuum emission morphologies and the field morphologies are generally more complex for the high-mass sample than the low-mass sample. The large scale magnetic field (observed with the JCMT; 14″ resolution) of NGC1333 IRAS2 is interpreted to be weak (compared to the energetic contributions due to turbulence) from the random field pattern observed. On smaller scales (observed with the BIMA array; 3″ resolution) the field is observed to be almost radial, consistent with the polarisation nulls in the JCMT data – suggesting that on smaller scales, the field may be more important to the star formation process. An analysis of the magnetic field direction and the jet/outflow axis is also discussed. Cumulative distribution functions of the difference between the mean position angle of the magnetic field vectors and the jet/outflow axis reveal no correlation. However, visual inspection of the maps reveal alignment of the magnetic field and jet/outflow axis in 7 out of 15 high-mass regions and 3 out of 8 low-mass regions.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Astronomical UnionSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207