Distant probes of rotation measure structure: where is the Faraday rotation towards the Magellanic Leading Arm?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Faraday rotation measures (RMs) should be interpreted with caution because there could be multiple magneto-ionized medium components that contribute to the net Faraday rotation along sightlines. We introduce a simple test using Galactic diffuse polarized emission that evaluates whether structures evident in RM observations are associated with distant circumgalactic medium or foreground interstellar medium. We focus on the Magellanic Leading Arm region where a clear excess of RM was previously reported. There are two gaseous objects standing out in this direction: the distant Magellanic Leading Arm and the nearby Antlia supernova remnant (SNR). We recognized narrow depolarized filaments in the $2.3\, \rm GHz$ S-band Polarization All Sky Survey image that overlaps with the reported RM excess. We suggest that there is a steep gradient in Faraday rotation in a foreground screen arising from the Antlia SNR. The estimated strength of the line-of-sight component of the magnetic field is $B_{\parallel }\sim 5\, \rm \mu G$, assuming that the excess of RM is entirely an outcome of the magnetized supernova shell. Our analysis indicates that the overlap between the RM excess and the Magellanic Leading Arm is only a remarkable coincidence. We suggest for future RM grid studies that checking Galactic diffuse polarization maps is a convenient way to identify local Faraday screens.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".