Erratum: “The JCMT BISTRO Survey: Magnetic Fields Associated with a Network of Filaments in NGC 1333” (2020, ApJ, 899, 28)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the published article, we presented high-resolution polarimetry data obtained by using JCMT SCUBA-2/POL-2, and compared them with the larger-scale magnetic structure observed by Planck (Planck Collaboration et al. 2020). There was a miscalculation in the analysis of the Planck data for comparison, and the mean position angle of the Planck magnetic field should be corrected from -40° ± 7° to -48° ± 6°. Thus, we replace the descriptions in the published article as follows. In Section 4.2, paragraph 3, the second sentence should read: "The differences between the orientations of IRAS 4A, IRAS 4B, and IRAS 2A are not statistically significant, but they do show significantly different orientations from those of the global B-field observed by Planck (-48° ± 6°; Section 4.1)." In Section 4.1, paragraph 3, the second line should read: "The Planck B-field orientation shows a smoothly and slowly varying field distribution with a position angle of -48° ± 6° in our observed NGC 1333 area." Accordingly, we replace Figures 4, 5, 9, 10, and 17 to reflect the correct Planck data. As described above, this error of modest magnitude is related only to our derivation of the Planck polarization angle, and the JCMT observation results are unaffected. Therefore, all conclusions drawn in the published article are unchanged even after the above correction is applied. The 1 pc scale magnetic field observed by Planck shows a smooth distribution, and the interstellar magnetic field in molecular clouds increases the complexity significantly on the scale of less than 1 pc.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.030 |
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".