MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4293212333 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8052

The SOFIA FEEDBACK Legacy Survey Dynamics and Mass Ejection in the Bipolar H ii Region RCW 36

2022· article· en· W4293212333 on OpenAlexaff
Lars Bonne, N. Schneider, Pablo García, Akanksha Bij, Patrick S. Broos, Laura M. Fissel, R. Guêsten, James M. Jackson, R. Simon, Leisa K. Townsley, A. Zavagno, R. Aladro, C. Buchbender, C. Guevara, R. Higgins, A. M. Jacob, S. Kabanovic, R. Karim, Archana Soam, J. Stützki, M. Tiwari, F. Wyrowski, A. G. G. M. Tielens

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersAmes Research CenterUniversität zu KölnDeutsches Zentrum für Luft- und RaumfahrtUniversität StuttgartNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationAgence Nationale de la RechercheUniversities Space Research AssociationArmstrong Flight Research CenterDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsMolecular cloudPlasmaNebulaStarsAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present [C ii ] 158 μ m and [O i ] 63 μ m observations of the bipolar H ii region RCW 36 in the Vela C molecular cloud, obtained within the SOFIA legacy project FEEDBACK, which is complemented with APEX 12/13 CO (3–2) and Chandra X-ray (0.5–7 keV) data. This shows that the molecular ring, forming the waist of the bipolar nebula, expands with a velocity of 1–1.9 km s −1 . We also observe an increased line width in the ring, indicating that turbulence is driven by energy injection from the stellar feedback. The bipolar cavity hosts blueshifted expanding [C ii ] shells at 5.2 ± 0.5 ± 0.5 km s −1 (statistical and systematic uncertainty), which indicates that expansion out of the dense gas happens nonuniformly and that the observed bipolar phase might be relatively short (∼0.2 Myr). The X-ray observations show diffuse emission that traces a hot plasma, created by stellar winds, in and around RCW 36. At least 50% of the stellar wind energy is missing in RCW 36. This is likely due to leakage that is clearing even larger cavities around the bipolar RCW 36 region. Lastly, the cavities host high-velocity wings in [C ii ], which indicates relatively high mass ejection rates (∼5 × 10 −4 M ⊙ yr −1 ). This could be driven by stellar winds and/or radiation but remains difficult to constrain. This local mass ejection, which can remove all mass within 1 pc of RCW 36 in 1–2 Myr, and the large-scale clearing of ambient gas in the Vela C cloud indicate that stellar feedback plays a significant role in suppressing the star formation efficiency.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations21
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies→French-language works237,207→