MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Discovery of two magnetic massive stars in the Orion Nebula Cluster: a clue to the origin of neutron star magnetic fields?

2008· article· en· W2152548054 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of CanadaUniversité LavalCentre for Research in Astrophysics of Québec
FundersCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique
KeywordsNeutron starMagnetarPulsarNebulaStarsMagnetic fieldOrion NebulaProtostar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The origin of the magnetic fields in neutron stars, and the physical differences between magnetars and strongly magnetized radio pulsars are still under vigorous debate. It has been suggested that the properties of the progenitors of neutron stars (the massive OB stars), such as rotation, magnetic fields and mass, may play an important role in the outcome of core collapse leading to Type II supernovae. Therefore, knowing the magnetic properties of the progenitor OB stars would be an important asset for constraining models of stellar evolution leading to the birth of a neutron star. We present here the beginning of a broad study with the goal of characterizing the magnetic properties of main-sequence massive OB stars. We report the detection of two new massive magnetic stars in the Orion Nebula Cluster: Par 1772 (HD 36982) and NU Ori (HD 37061), for which the estimated dipole polar strengths, with 1σ error bars, are 1150+320ȡ200 and 620+220−170 G, respectively.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.228
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 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

Citations73
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society LettersSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207