A grand-design spiral galaxy with an ordered magnetic field at redshift 2.6 as resolved with ALMA and gravitational lensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Magnetic fields play an important role in the evolution of galaxies and in shaping the dynamics of their interstellar medium. However, the formation history of magnetic fields from initial seed-fields to well-ordered systems is not clear. Favoured scenarios include a turbulent dynamo that amplifies the field, and a mean-field dynamo that organizes it. Such a model can be tested through observing the magnetic-field structure of galaxies in the early Universe given the relative formation time-scales involved. Here, we combine the high angular resolution of the Atacama Large Millimetre Array (ALMA) and gravitational lensing to resolve the magnetic field structure of a 4 kpc in extent grand-design spiral when the Universe was just 2.6 Gyr old. We find that the spiral arm structure, as traced by the heated dust emission, is coincident with the linearly polarized emission, which is consistent with a highly ordered magnetic field. The time-scale needed to produce such an ordered field is likely within at least several rotations of the disc. Our study highlights the importance of combining the long baselines of ALMA and gravitational lensing to resolve the structure of galaxies at cosmologically interesting epochs.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".