MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Three-dimensional structure of the magnetic field in the disk of the Milky Way

2017· article· en· W3099558316 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Anna Ordog, J. C. Brown, R. Kothes, T. L. Landecker

Bibliographic record

VenueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSmithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
KeywordsMilky WayGalactic planePhysicsAstrophysicsSynchrotronMagnetic fieldRotation (mathematics)Galactic coronaDiscAstronomyGalaxySynchrotron radiationField (mathematics)Plane (geometry)Galactic haloGalaxy formation and evolutionOpticsGeometryHalo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aims. We present rotation measures (RM) of the diffuse Galactic synchrotron emission from the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey (CGPS) and compare them to RMs of extragalactic sources in order to study the large-scale reversal in the Galactic magnetic field (GMF). Methods. Using Stokes Q, U and I measurements of the Galactic disk collected with the Synthesis Telescope at the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory, we calculate RMs over an extended region of the sky, focusing on the low longitude range of the CGPS (ℓ = 52° to ℓ = 72°). Results. We note the similarity in the structures traced by the compact sources and the extended emission and highlight the presence of a gradient in the RM map across an approximately diagonal line, which we identify with the well-known field reversal of the Sagittarius-Carina arm. We suggest that the orientation of this reversal is a geometric effect resulting from our location within a GMF structure arising from current sheets that are not perpendicular to the Galactic plane, as is required for a strictly radial field reversal, but that have at least some component parallel to the disk. Examples of models that fit this description are the three-dimensional dynamo-based model of Gressel et al. (2013, A&A, 560, A93) and a Galactic scale Parker spiral (Akasofu & Hakamada 1982, ApJ, 253, 552), although the latter may be problematic in terms of Galactic dynamics. Conclusions. We emphasize the importance of constructing three-dimensional models of the GMF to account for structures like the diagonal RM gradient observed in this dataset.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations21
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpringer Link (Chiba Institute of Technology)Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207