MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3188976647 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac1bb9

A Core Mass Function Indistinguishable from the Salpeter Stellar Initial Mass Function Using 1000 au Resolution ALMA Observations

2021· preprint· en· W3188976647 on OpenAlexaff
Genaro Suárez, Roberto Galván-Madrid, L. A. Aguilar, Adam Ginsburg, S. Srinivasan, Hauyu Baobab Liu, C. Román-Zúñiga

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicScientific Research and Discoveries
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsInitial mass functionFlatteningFlux (metallurgy)Power lawFunction (biology)MillimeterGalaxyStar formationAstronomyStatisticsMathematicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present the core mass function (CMF) of the massive star-forming clump G33.92 + 0.11 using 1.3 mm observations obtained with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA). With a resolution of 1000 au, this is one of the highest resolution CMF measurements to date. The CMF is corrected by flux and number incompleteness to obtain a sample that is complete for gas masses M ≳ 2.0 M ⊙. The resulting CMF is well represented by a power-law function ( dN / d log M ∝ M Γ ), whose slope is determined using two different approaches: (i) by least-squares fitting of power-law functions to the flux- and number-corrected CMF, and (ii) by comparing the observed CMF to simulated samples with similar incompleteness. We provide a prescription to quantify and correct a flattening bias affecting the slope fits in the first approach, which is caused by small-sample or edge effects when the data are represented by either classical histograms or a kernel density estimate, respectively. The resulting slopes from both approaches are in good agreement each other, with Γ = − 1.11 − 0.11 + 0.12 being our adopted value. Although this slope appears to be slightly flatter than the Salpeter slope Γ = −1.35 for the stellar initial mass function (IMF), we find from Monte Carlo simulations that the CMF in G33.92 + 0.11 is statistically indistinguishable from the Salpeter representation of the stellar IMF. Our results are consistent with the idea that the form of the IMF is inherited from the CMF, at least at high masses and when the latter is observed at high enough resolution.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicScientific Research and DiscoveriesFrench-language works237,207