MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4281783103 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stac1572

The musca molecular cloud: The perfect ‘filament’ is still a sheet

2022· article· en· W4281783103 on OpenAlexafffund
Aris Tritsis, F. Bouzelou, Raphael Skalidis, Konstantinos Tassis, T. A. Enßlin, Gordian Edenhofer

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSeventh Framework Programme
KeywordsPhysicsMolecular cloudStarsMuscaStar formationAstrophysicsProtein filamentExtinction (optical mineralogy)Radiative transferLine-of-sightAstronomyOpticsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The true three-dimensional (3D) morphology of the Musca molecular cloud is a topic that has received significant attention lately. Given that Musca does not exhibit intense star-formation activity, unveiling its shape has the potential to also reveal crucial information regarding the physics that dictates the formation of the first generation of stars within molecular clouds. Here, we revisit the shape of Musca and we present a comprehensive array of evidence pointing towards a shape that is extended along the line-of-sight dimension: (a) 3D maps of differential extinction; (b) new non-local thermodynamic equilibrium radiative transfer simulations of CO rotational transitions from a sheet-like, magnetically dominated simulated cloud; (c) an effective/critical density analysis of available CO observations; and (d) indirect consequences that a filamentary structure would have had, from a theoretical star-formation perspective. We conclude that the full collection of observational evidence strongly suggests that Musca has a sheet-like geometry.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies→French-language works237,207→