Relative alignment between magnetic fields and molecular gas structure in molecular clouds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We compare the structure of synthetic dust polarization with synthetic molecular line emission from radiative transfer calculations using a three-dimensional, turbulent collapsing-cloud magnetohydrodynamics simulation. The histogram of relative orientation (HRO) technique and the projected Rayleigh statistic (PRS) are considered. In our trans-Alfvénic (more strongly magnetized) simulation, there is a transition to perpendicular alignment at densities above ∼4 × 103 cm−3. This transition is recovered in most of our synthetic observations of optically thin molecular tracers; however, for 12CO it does not occur and the PRS remains in parallel alignment across the whole observer space. We calculate the physical depth of the optical depth τ = 1 surface and find that for 12CO it is largely located in front of the cloud mid-plane, suggesting that 12CO is too optically thick and instead mainly probes low-volume density gas. In our super-Alfvénic simulation, the magnetic field becomes significantly more tangled, and all observed tracers tend towards no preference for perpendicular or parallel alignment. An observable difference in alignment between optically thin and optically thick tracers may indicate the presence of a dynamically important magnetic field, though there is some degeneracy with viewing angle. We convolve our data with a Gaussian beam and compare it with HRO results of the Vela C molecular cloud. We find good agreement between these results and our sub-Alfvénic simulations when viewed with the magnetic field in the plane of the sky (especially when sensitivity limitations are considered), though the observations are also consistent with an intermediately inclined magnetic field.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".