MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2513124424 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/833/2/229

OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE OF DYNAMIC STAR FORMATION RATE IN MILKY WAY GIANT MOLECULAR CLOUDS

2016· article· en· W2513124424 on OpenAlexaff
Eve J. Lee, M.-A. Miville-Deschênes, Norman Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsMilky WayStar formationAstrophysicsMolecular cloudVirial massCMB cold spotStarsVelocity dispersionStar (game theory)SigmaVirial theoremAstronomyGalaxyCosmic microwave background

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Star formation on galactic scales is known to be a slow process, but whether it is slow on smaller scales is uncertain. We cross-correlate 5469 giant molecular clouds (GMCs) from a new all-sky catalog with 256 star-forming complexes (SFCs) to build a sample of 191 SFC-GMC complexes—collections of multiple clouds each matched to 191 SFCs. The total mass in stars harbored by these clouds is inferred from WMAP free–free fluxes. We measure the GMC mass, the virial parameter, the star formation efficiency ϵ and the star formation rate per freefall time ϵ ff . Both ϵ and ϵ ff range over 3–4 orders of magnitude. We find that 68.3% of the clouds fall within and about the median. Compared to these observed scatters, a simple model with a time-independent ϵ ff that depends on the host GMC properties predicts . Allowing for a time-variable ϵ ff , we can recover the large dispersion in the rate of star formation. This strongly suggests that star formation in the Milky Way is a dynamic process on GMC scales. We also show that the surface star formation rate profile of the Milky Way correlates well with the molecular gas surface density profile.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.731
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations152
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207