The influence of the magnetic field orientation on the angular momentum loss in the pre-main sequence phase: The case of very slowly rotating magnetic Ap stars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Landstreet & Mathys ([CITE]) have discovered that almost all the magnetic Ap stars having rotation periods longer than about one month have their magnetic and rotation axes fairly closely aligned, in contrast to the more common magnetic Ap stars of shorter period, in which the two axes are usually inclined to one another at a large angle. Furthermore, as shown earlier by Mathys et al. ([CITE]) and by Hubrig et al. ([CITE]), these most slowly rotating magnetic Ap stars have also magnetic fields several times larger than are typical for shorter period magnetic Ap stars, and generally have masses below 3 . In this paper, we present calculations to show that the observed axial alignment in the slowest rotators may have arisen during the pre-main sequence (PMS) phase, when stars of a few solar masses are observed as Herbig Ae/Be stars. During the PMS phase, a star is expected to exchange angular momentum with a disk and with a stellar wind. As shown by Stępień ([CITE]), a disk around a PMS magnetic Ap star tends to lock the rotation rate at a few days, while mass loss in the absence of a disk is able to slow the star to quite long periods. We argue that is it plausible to assume that the fraction of the PMS phase during which a disk persists depends on the orientation of the field axis to the plane of the disk, and that disk dissipation may have occurred more quickly in magnetic stars with aligned magnetic and rotation axes than in stars in which the angle between these axes is large. In this case, the magnetic Ap stars with aligned rotation and magnetic axes, especially those with large fields, could lose much more angular momentum than the stars of large obliquity. However, it is also shown that loss of nearly all the angular momentum is only possible for stars with masses below about 3 (and with relatively large fields); for higher masses the available time is too short. Our model thus provides a reasonable explanation for all of the principle observational facts about the very slowly rotating magnetic Ap stars.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".