Could bow-shaped magnetic morphologies surround filamentary molecular clouds? The 3D magnetic field structure of Orion-A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. A new method based on Faraday rotation measurements recently found the line-of-sight component of magnetic fields in Orion-A and showed that their direction changes from the eastern side of this filamentary structure to its western side. Three possible magnetic field morphologies that can explain this reversal across the Orion-A region are toroidal, helical, and bow-shaped morphologies. Aims. In this paper, we constructed simple models to represent these three morphologies and compared them with the available observational data to find the most probable morphology(ies). Methods. We compared the observations with the models and used probability values and a Monte Carlo analysis to determine the most likely magnetic field morphology among these three morphologies. Results. We found that the bow morphology had the highest probability values, and that our Monte-Carlo analysis suggested that the bow morphology was more likely. Conclusions. We suggest that the bow morphology is the most likely and the most natural of the three morphologies that could explain a magnetic field reversal across the Orion-A filamentary structure (i.e., bow, helical and toroidal morphologies).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".