MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2418081591 · doi:10.3847/0004-637x/827/2/107

MID-J CO SHOCK TRACING OBSERVATIONS OF INFRARED DARK CLOUDS. III. SLED FITTING

2016· article· en· W2418081591 on OpenAlexaff
Andy Pon, Michael J. Kaufman, Doug Johnstone, P. Caselli, F. Fontani, Michael J. Butler, Izaskun Jiménez-Serra, Aina Palau, Jonathan C. Tan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsWestern University
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsAstrophysicsPhysicsProtostarLine (geometry)InfraredPhotodissociationShock (circulatory)Emission spectrumSpectral lineMolecular cloudStar formationAstronomyStarsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Giant molecular clouds contain supersonic turbulence that can locally heat small fractions of gas to over 100 K. We run shock models for low-velocity, C-type shocks propagating into gas with densities between 103 and 105 cm−3 and find that CO lines are the most important cooling lines. Comparison to photodissociation region (PDR) models indicates that mid-J CO lines (J = 8 7 and higher) should be dominated by emission from shocked gas. In Papers I and II we presented CO J = 3 2, 8 7, and 9 8 observations toward four primarily quiescent clumps within infrared dark clouds. Here we fit PDR models to the combined spectral line energy distributions and show that the PDR models that best fit the low-J CO emission underpredict the mid-J CO emission by orders of magnitude, strongly hinting at a hot gas component within these clumps. The low-J CO data clearly show that the integrated intensities of both the CO J = 8 7 and 9 8 lines are anomalously high, such that the line ratio can be used to characterize the hot gas component. Shock models are reasonably consistent with the observed mid-J CO emission, with models with densities near cm−3 providing the best agreement. Where this mid-J CO is detected, the mean volume filling factor of the hot gas is 0.1%. Much of the observed mid-J CO emission, however, is also associated with known protostars and may be due to protostellar feedback.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies→French-language works237,207→