Accretion Flows or Outflow Cavities? Uncovering the Gas Dynamics around Lupus 3-MMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding how material accretes onto the rotationally supported disk from the surrounding envelope of gas and dust in the youngest protostellar systems is important for describing how disks are formed. Magnetohydrodynamic simulations of magnetized, turbulent disk formation usually show spiral-like streams of material (accretion flows) connecting the envelope to the disk. However, accretion flows in these early stages of protostellar formation still remain poorly characterized, due to their low intensity, and possibly some extended structures are disregarded as being part of the outflow cavity. We use ALMA archival data of a young Class 0 protostar, Lupus 3-MMS, to uncover four extended accretion flow–like structures in C 18 O that follow the edges of the outflows. We make various types of position–velocity cuts to compare with the outflows and find the extended structures are not consistent with the outflow emission, but rather more consistent with a simple infall model. We then use a dendrogram algorithm to isolate five substructures in position–position–velocity space. Four out of the five substructures fit well (>95%) with our simple infall model, with specific angular momenta between 2.7–6.9 × 10 −4 km s −1 pc and mass-infall rates of 0.5–1.1 × 10 −6 M ⊙ yr −1 . Better characterization of the physical structure in the supposed “outflow cavities” is important to disentangle the true outflow cavities and accretion flows.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".