MAGNETISM IN HERBIG AE/BE STARS AND THE LINK TO THE AP/BP STARS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Among the A/B stars, about 5 % host large-scale organised magnetic fields. These magnetic stars show also abundance anomalies in their spectra, and are therefore called the magnetic Ap/Bp stars. Most of these stars are also slow rotators compared to the normal A and B stars. Today, one of the greatest challenges concerning the Ap/Bp stars is to understand the origin of their slow rotation and their magnetic fields. The favoured hypothesis for the latter is that the fields are fosils, which implies that the magnetic fields subsist throughout the different evolutionary phases, and in particular during the premain sequence phase. The existence of magnetic fields at the pre-main sequence phase is also required to explain the slow rotation of Ap/Bp stars. During the last 3 years we performed a spectropolarimetric survey of the Herbig Ae/Be stars in the field and in young clusters, in order to investigate their magnetism and rotation. These investigations have resulted in the detection and/or confirmation of magnetic fields in 8 Herbig Ae/Be stars, ranging in mass from 2 to nearly 15 solar masses. In this paper I will present the results of our survey, as well as their implications for the origin and evolution of the magnetic fields and rotation of the A and B stars.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".