The relation between the column density structures and the magnetic field orientation in the Vela C molecular complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We statistically evaluated the relative orientation between gas column density structures, inferred from Herschel submillimetre observations, and the magnetic field projected on the plane of sky, inferred from polarized thermal emission of Galactic dust observed by the Balloon-borne Large-Aperture Submillimetre Telescope for Polarimetry (BLASTPol) at 250, 350, and 500 μ m, towards the Vela C molecular complex. First, we find very good agreement between the polarization orientations in the three wavelength-bands, suggesting that, at the considered common angular resolution of 3.́0 that corresponds to a physical scale of approximately 0.61 pc, the inferred magnetic field orientation is not significantly affected by temperature or dust grain alignment effects. Second, we find that the relative orientation between gas column density structures and the magnetic field changes progressively with increasing gas column density, from mostly parallel or having no preferred orientation at low column densities to mostly perpendicular at the highest column densities. This observation is in agreement with previous studies by the Planck collaboration towards more nearby molecular clouds. Finally, we find a correspondencebetween (a) the trends in relative orientation between the column density structures and the projected magnetic field; and (b) the shape of the column density probability distribution functions (PDFs). In the sub-regions of Vela C dominated by one clear filamentary structure, or “ridges”, where the high-column density tails of the PDFs are flatter, we find a sharp transition from preferentially parallel or having no preferred relative orientation at low column densities to preferentially perpendicular at highest column densities. In the sub-regions of Vela C dominated by several filamentary structures with multiple orientations, or “nests”, where the maximum values of the column density are smaller than in the ridge-like sub-regions and the high-column density tails of the PDFs are steeper, such a transition is also present, but it is clearly less sharp than in the ridge-like sub-regions. Both of these results suggest that the magnetic field is dynamically important for the formation of density structures in this region.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".