STAR CLUSTER FORMATION WITH STELLAR FEEDBACK AND LARGE-SCALE INFLOW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During star cluster formation, ongoing mass accretion is resisted by stellar feedback in the form of protostellar outflows from the low-mass stars and photo-ionization and radiation pressure feedback from the massive stars. We model the evolution of cluster-forming regions during a phase in which both accretion and feedback are present and use these models to investigate how star cluster formation might terminate. Protostellar outflows are the strongest form of feedback in low-mass regions, but these cannot stop cluster formation if matter continues to flow in. In more massive clusters, radiation pressure and photo-ionization rapidly clear the cluster-forming gas when its column density is too small. We assess the rates of dynamical mass ejection and of evaporation, while accounting for the important effect of dust opacity on photo-ionization. Our models are consistent with the census of protostellar outflows in NGC 1333 and Serpens South and with the dust temperatures observed in regions of massive star formation. Comparing observations of massive cluster-forming regions against our model parameter space, and against our expectations for accretion-driven evolution, we infer that massive-star feedback is a likely cause of gas disruption in regions with velocity dispersions less than a few kilometers per second, but that more massive and more turbulent regions are too strongly bound for stellar feedback to be disruptive.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".