MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963199707 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab3416

The Transition from a Lognormal to a Power-law Column Density Distribution in Molecular Clouds: An Imprint of the Initial Magnetic Field and Turbulence

2019· article· en· W2963199707 on OpenAlexaff
Sayantan Auddy, Shantanu Basu, Takahiro Kudoh

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsLog-normal distributionMach numberMagnetic fieldTurbulencePower lawMathematical physicsQuantum mechanicsThermodynamicsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We introduce a theory for the development of a transitional column density ΣTP between the lognormal and the power-law forms of the probability distribution function in a molecular cloud. Our turbulent magnetohydrodynamic simulations show that the value of ΣTP increases as the strength of both the initial magnetic field and turbulence increases. We develop an analytic expression for ΣTP based on the interplay of turbulence, a (strong) magnetic field, and gravity. The transition value ΣTP scales with , the square of the initial sonic Mach number, and β 0, the initial ratio of gas pressure to magnetic pressure. We fit the variation of ΣTP among different model clouds as a function of or, equivalently, the square of the initial Alfvénic Mach number . This implies that the transition value ΣTP is an imprint of cloud initial conditions and is set by turbulent compression of a magnetic cloud. Physically, the value of ΣTP denotes the boundary above which the mass-to-flux ratio becomes supercritical and gravity drives the 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 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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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