MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113900449 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1207.7071

The VLT-FLAMES Tarantula Survey VI: Evidence for rotation of the young massive cluster R136

2012· article· en· W2113900449 on OpenAlexfundno aff
V. Hénault-Brunet, Mark Gieles, C. J. Evans, H. Sana, N. Bastian, J. Maíz Apellániz, W. D. Taylor, N. Markova, E. Bressert, A. de Koter, Jacco Th. van Loon

Bibliographic record

VenueUvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJunta de AndalucíaDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftScottish Universities Physics AllianceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsLarge Magellanic CloudStar clusterCluster (spacecraft)Rotation (mathematics)StarsRADIUSAstronomyVelocity dispersionRadial velocityGalaxy rotation curveStar formationStellar rotationGalaxyGalaxy formation and evolutionGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although it has important ramifications for both the formation of star clusters and their subsequent dynamical evolution, rotation remains a largely unexplored characteristic of young star clusters (few Myr). Using multi-epoch spectroscopic data of the inner regions of 30 Doradus in the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) obtained as part of the VLT-FLAMES Tarantula Survey, we search for rotation of the young massive cluster R136. From the radial velocities of 36 apparently single O-type stars within a projected radius of 10 pc from the centre of the cluster, we find evidence, at the 95% confidence level, for rotation of the cluster as a whole. We use a maximum likelihood method to fit simple rotation curves to our data and find a typical rotational velocity of ~3 km/s. When compared to the low velocity dispersion of R136, our result suggests that star clusters may form with at least ~20% of the kinetic energy in rotation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 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

Citations30
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam)Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207