Magnetic fields of red giants and supergiants: a review of spectropolarimetric observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, magnetic fields have been reliably detected in many classes of stars with convective envelopes, from young T~Tauri stars to supergiants. We present an overview of the results obtained with high-precision spectropolarimetric observations of selected single F0-M0 giants and supergiants. The measurements of the magnetic field in these objects were started in 1989 at the 2.6-meter ZTSh telescope of the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory. To date, weak magnetic fields have been recorded in nearly four dozen of slowly rotating red giants. The longitudinal component of the field in several cases reaches a few tens of gauss. A spectropolarimetric survey of red supergiants includes three dozen objects. The magnetic field was detected in dozen of them. For one of these targets, $\epsilon$~Gem, the magnetic field up to 10~G was reported. Because the magnetic field is frozen into the plasma, it is expected that the magnetic field of giants and supergiants should not exceed one gauss because stars have increased in size after the main sequence. Therefore, the main conclusion from the results of spectropolarimetric surveys of giants and supergiants with convective envelopes is that the most probable mechanism for the generation and amplification of the magnetic field in these objects is the dynamo action.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".