MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939061293 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab1346

Magnetic Stability of Massive Star-forming Clumps in RCW 106

2019· article· en· W2939061293 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsIBM (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetic fieldStarsGalactic planeMolecular cloudMagnetic structurePolarimeterMagnetic fluxMagnetic cloud

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The RCW 106 molecular cloud complex is an active massive star-forming region where a ministarburst is taking place. We examined its magnetic structure by near-IR polarimetric observations with the imaging polarimeter SIRPOL on the IRSF 1.4 m telescope. The global magnetic field is nearly parallel to the direction of the Galactic plane and the cloud elongation. We derived the magnetic field strength of ∼100–1600 μG for 71 clumps with the Davis–Chandrasekhar–Fermi method. We also evaluated the magnetic stability of these clumps and found that massive star-forming clumps tend to be magnetically unstable and gravitationally unstable. Therefore, we propose a new criterion to search for massive star-forming clumps. These details suggest that the process enhancing the clump density without an increase of the magnetic flux is essential for the formation of massive stars and the necessity for accreting mass along the magnetic field lines.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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