The Ophiuchus DIsc Survey Employing ALMA (ODISEA) – III. The evolution of substructures in massive discs at 3–5 au resolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We present 1.3 mm continuum ALMA long-baseline observations at 3–5 au resolution of 10 of the brightest discs from the Ophiuchus DIsc Survey Employing ALMA (ODISEA) project. We identify a total of 26 narrow rings and gaps distributed in 8 sources and 3 discs with small dust cavities (r <10 au). We find that two discs around embedded protostars lack the clear gaps and rings that are ubiquitous in more evolved sources with Class II SEDs. Our sample includes five objects with previously known large dust cavities (r >20 au). We find that the 1.3 mm radial profiles of these objects are in good agreement with those produced by numerical simulations of dust evolution and planet–disc interactions, which predict the accumulation of mm-sized grains at the edges of planet-induced cavities. Our long-baseline observations resulted in the largest sample of discs observed at ∼3–5 au resolution in any given star-forming region (15 objects when combined with Ophiuchus objects in the DSHARP Large Program) and allow for a demographic study of the brightest $\sim\! 5{{\ \rm per\ cent}}$ of the discs in Ophiuchus (i.e. the most likely formation sites of giant planets in the cloud). We use this unique sample to propose an evolutionary sequence and discuss a scenario in which the substructures observed in massive protoplanetary discs are mainly the result of planet formation and dust evolution. If this scenario is correct, the detailed study of disc substructures might provide a window to investigate a population of planets that remains mostly undetectable by other techniques.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".