MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3151304702 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf4c8

Magnetic Properties of Star-forming Dense Cores

2021· article· en· W3151304702 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZeeman effectMagnetic fieldPolarization (electrochemistry)AmplitudeField strengthField (mathematics)Range (aeronautics)Dispersion (optics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Magnetic and energetic properties are presented for 17 dense cores within a few hundred parsecs of the Sun. Their plane-of-sky field strengths B pos are estimated from the dispersion of polarization directions, following Davis, Chandrasekhar, and Fermi (DCF). Their ratio of mass to magnetic critical mass is 0.5 ≲ M / M B ≲ 3 , indicating nearly critical field strengths. The field strength B pos is correlated with column density N as B pos ∝ N p , where p = 1.05 ± 0.08 , and with density n as B pos ∝ n q , where q = 0.66 ± 0.05 . These magnetic properties are consistent with those derived from Zeeman studies, with less scatter. Relations between virial mass M V , magnetic critical mass M B , and Alfvén amplitude σ B / B match the observed range of M/M B for cores observed to be nearly virial, 0.5 ≲ M / M V ≲ 2 , with moderate Alfvén amplitudes, 0.1 ≲ σ B / B ≲ 0.4 . The B − N and B − n correlations in the DCF and Zeeman samples can be explained when such bound, Alfvénic, and nearly critical cores have central concentration and spheroidal shape. For these properties, B ∝ N because M/M B is nearly constant compared to the range of N, and

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations39
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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