MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145265132 · doi:10.1086/323375

Magnetic Fields in Star‐forming Molecular Clouds. II. The Depolarization Effect in the OMC‐3 Filament of Orion A

2001· article· en· W2145265132 on OpenAlexaff
Brenda C. Matthews, C. D. Wilson, Jason Fiege

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtein filamentPolarization (electrochemistry)PhysicsJames Clerk Maxwell TelescopePolarimeterAstrophysicsMagnetic fieldDepolarizationMolecular cloudExcitationTelescopePolarimetryGeometryStar formationOpticsGalaxyScatteringStarsMaterials scienceChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Polarized 850 micron thermal emission data of the region OMC-3 in the Orion A molecular cloud are presented. These data, taken in 1998 with the SCUBA polarimeter mounted on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope, have been re-reduced using improved software. The polarization pattern is not suggestive of a uniform field structure local to OMC-3, nor does the orientation of the vectors align with existing polarimetry maps of the OMC-1 core 20' to the south. The depolarization toward high intensity regions cannot be explained by uniform field geometry except in the presence of changing grain structure, which is most likely to occur in regions of high density or temperature (i.e. the embedded cores). The depolarization in fact occurs along the length of the filamentary structure of OMC-3 and is not limited to the vicinity of the bright cores. Such a polarization pattern is predicted by helical field models for filamentary clouds. We present three scenarios to explain the observed polarization pattern of OMC-3 in terms of a helical field geometry. Qualitative models incorporating a helical field geometry are presented for two cases.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations103
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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