Magnetic field morphology in nearby molecular clouds as revealed by starlight and submillimetre polarization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within four nearby (d < 160 pc) molecular clouds, we statistically evaluated the structure of the interstellar magnetic field, projected on the plane of the sky and integrated along the line of sight, as inferred from the polarized thermal emission of Galactic dust observed by Planck at 353 GHz and from the optical and near-infrared polarization of background starlight. We compared the dispersion of the field orientation directly in vicinities with an area equivalent to that subtended by the Planck effective beam at 353 GHz (10′) and using the second-order structure functions of the field orientation angles. We found that the average dispersion of the starlight-inferred field orientations within 10′-diameter vicinities is less than 20°, and that at these scales the mean field orientation is on average within 5° of that inferred from the submillimetre polarization observations in the considered regions. We also found that the dispersion of starlight polarization orientations and the polarization fractions within these vicinities are well reproduced by a Gaussian model of the turbulent structure of the magnetic field, in agreement with the findings reported by the Planck Collaboration at scales ℓ > 10′ and for comparable column densities. At scales ℓ > 10′, we found differences of up to 14.̊7 between the second-order structure functions obtained from starlight and submillimetre polarization observations in the same positions in the plane of the sky, but comparison with a Gaussian model of the turbulent structure of the magnetic field indicates that these differences are small and are consistent with the difference in angular resolution between both techniques. The differences between the second-order structure functions calculated with each technique suggests that the increase in the angular resolution obtained with the starlight polarization observations does not introduce significant corrections to the dispersion of polarization orientations used in the calculation of the molecular-cloud-scale magnetic field strengths reported in previous studies by the Planck Collaboration.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".