MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165869922 · doi:10.1051/eas/1152059

Star formation in the Rosette molecular cloud under the influence of NGC 2244

2011· article· en· W2165869922 on OpenAlexaff
N. Schneider, F. Motte, S. Bontemps, M. Hennemann, Pascal Tremblin, V. Minier, E. Audit, James Di Francesco, Ph. André, T. Hill, T. Csengeri, Q. Ngyuen-Luong

Bibliographic record

VenueEAS Publications Series · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsRosette (schizont appearance)Molecular cloudCluster (spacecraft)Star formationStar clusterRadiative transferCloud computingAstronomyStarsBiologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Rosette molecular cloud has a characteristic morphology, where the central OB cluster NGC 2244 has blown a circular-shaped cavity into the cloud and the expanding HII-region now interacts with the cloud. We use continuum data obtained with the PACS (70 and 160 μm) and SPIRE instruments (250, 350, 500 μm) of the Herschel telescope to investigate the spatial distribution of cold and warm gas and to locate all star-forming sites in Rosette. We detected a clear negative temperature gradient and a positive density gradient (running from the HII-region/molecular cloud interface into the cloud), and an age-sequence (from more evolved to younger) with increasing distance to the cluster NGC 2244. The existence of such temperature and density gradients and the observed age-sequence imply that star formation in Rosette may indeed be influenced by the radiative impact of the central NGC 2244 cluster.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEAS Publications SeriesSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207