MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4318485470 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acaa38

Models of Rotating Infall for the B335 Protostar

2023· article· en· W4318485470 on OpenAlexaff
Neal J. Evans, Yao-Lun Yang, Joel D. Green, Bo Zhao, James Di Francesco, Jeong‐Eun Lee, J. K. Jørgensen, Minho Choi, Philip C. Myers, Diego Mardones

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
FundersMinistry of Science and ICT, South KoreaNational Astronomical Observatory of JapanNational Research Foundation of KoreaNational Science CouncilNational Research FoundationNational Institutes of Natural SciencesEuropean Space AgencyNational Radio Astronomy ObservatoryNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsProtostarAstrophysicsAstronomyStarsStar formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Models of the protostellar source, B335, are developed using axisymmetric three-dimensional models to resolve conflicts found in one-dimensional models. The models are constrained by a large number of observations, including ALMA, Herschel, and Spitzer data. Observations of the protostellar source B335 with ALMA show redshifted absorption against a central continuum source indicative of infall in the HCO + and HCN J = 4 → 3 transitions. The data are combined with a new estimate of the distance to provide strong constraints to three-dimensional radiative transfer models including a rotating, infalling envelope, outflow cavities, and a very small disk. The models favor ages since the initiation of collapse between 3 × 10 4 and 4 × 10 4 yr for both the continuum and the lines, resolving a conflict found in one-dimensional models. The models underpredict the continuum emission seen by ALMA, suggesting an additional component such as a pseudo-disk. The best-fitting model is used to convert variations in the 4.5 μ m flux in recent years into a model for a variation of a factor of 5–7 in luminosity over the last 8 yr.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207