Rotation plays a role in the generation of magnetic fields in single white dwarfs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Recent surveys of close white dwarf binaries as well as single white dwarfs have provided evidence for the late appearance of magnetic fields in white dwarfs, and a possible generation mechanism, a crystallization and rotation-driven dynamo has been suggested. A key prediction of this dynamo is that magnetic white dwarfs rotate, at least on average, faster than their non-magnetic counterparts and/or that the magnetic field strength increases with rotation. Here we present rotation periods of ten white dwarfs within 40 pc measured using photometric variations. Eight of the light curves come from TESS observations and are thus not biased towards short periods, in contrast to most period estimates that have been reported previously in the literature. These TESS spin periods are indeed systematically shorter than those of non-magnetic white dwarfs. This means that the crystallization and rotation-driven dynamo could be responsible for a fraction of the magnetic fields in white dwarfs. However, the full sample of magnetic white dwarfs also contains slowly rotating strongly magnetic white dwarfs which indicates that another mechanism that leads to the late appearance of magnetic white dwarfs might be at work, either in addition to or instead of the dynamo. The fast-spinning and massive magnetic white dwarfs that appear in the literature form a small fraction of magnetic white dwarfs, and probably result from a channel related to white dwarf mergers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".