MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742477780 · doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx128

Can the observed E/B ratio for dust galactic foreground be explained by sub-Alfvénic turbulence?

2017· article· en· W2742477780 on OpenAlexaff
D. Kandel, A. Lazarian, D. Pogosyan

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsTurbulenceMagnetohydrodynamicsAstrophysicsMagnetohydrodynamic turbulenceMagnetohydrodynamic drivePlanckInterstellar mediumContext (archaeology)GalaxyComputational physicsMechanicsPlasmaQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent Planck observations of dust polarization in the Galaxy have revealed that the power in E mode is twice that in B mode. Caldwell et al. have formulated a theoretical model in the context of magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) turbulence and found it problematic to account for this result. In particular, they concluded that there is a very narrow range of theoretical parameters that could account for the observation. This poses a problem of whether the accepted description of MHD turbulence can apply to the interstellar medium. We revisit the problem and demonstrate that MHD turbulence corresponding to the high galactic latitudes range of Alfvén Mach numbers, i.e. MA ≲ 0.5, can successfully explain the available results for the E to B mode ratio.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations28
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society LettersSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207