Discovery of kilogauss magnetic fields on the nearby white dwarfs WD 1105–340 and WD 2150+591
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magnetic fields are present in roughly 10% of white dwarfs. These fields affect the structure and evolution of such stars, and may provide clues about their earlier evolution history. Particularly important for statistical studies is the collection of high-precision spectropolarimetric observations of (1) complete magnitude-limited samples and (2) complete volume-limited samples of white dwarfs. In the course of one of our surveys we have discovered previously unknown kG-level magnetic fields on two nearby white dwarfs, WD 1105–340 and WD 2150+591. Both stars are brighter than mV = 15. WD 2150+591 is within the 20 pc volume around the Sun, while WD 1105–340 is just beyond 25 pc in distance. These discoveries increase the small sample of such weak-field white dwarfs from 21 to 23 stars. Our data appear consistent with roughly dipolar field topology, but it also appears that the surface field structure may be more complex on the older star than on the younger one, a result similar to one found earlier in our study of the weak-field stars WD 2034+372 and WD 2359–434. This encourages further efforts to uncover a clear link between magnetic morphology and stellar evolution.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".