Proto-Brown Dwarf Disks as Products of Protostellar Disk Encounters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The formation of brown dwarfs via encounters between proto-stars has been confirmed with high-resolution numerical simulations with a restricted treatment of the thermal conditions. The new results indicate that young brown dwarfs (BDs) formed this way are disk-like and often reside in multiple systems. The newly-formed proto-BDs disks are up to 18 AU in size and spin rapidly making small-scale bipolar outflows, fragmentation and the possible formation of planetary companions likely as have recently been observed for BDs. The object masses range from 2 to 73 Jupiter masses, distributed in a manner consistent with the observed sub-stellar initial mass function. The simulations usually form multiple BDs on eccentric orbits about a star. One such system was hierarchical, a BD binary in orbit around a star, which may explain recently observed hierarchical systems. One third of the BDs were unbound after a few thousand years and interactions among orbiting BDs may eject more or add to the number of binaries. Improvements over prior work include resolution down to a Jupiter mass, self-consistent models of the vertical structure of the initial disks and careful attention to avoid artificial fragmentation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".