Stellar populations in STARFORGE II: comparison with observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Recent studies suggest that most star-forming regions in our Galaxy form stellar associations rather than bound clusters. We analyse models from the STAR FORmation in Gaseous Environments (STARFORGE) simulation suite, a set of magnetohydrodynamical simulations that include all key stellar feedback and radiative processes following star formation through cloud dispersal. We create synthetic observations by introducing observational biases such as random spurious measurements, unresolved binaries, and photometric sensitivity. These biases affect the measurement of the group mass, size, and velocity dispersion, introducing uncertainties of up to 100 per cent, with accuracy improving as the number of system members increases. Furthermore, models favouring the formation of groups around massive stars were the most affected by observational biases, as massive stars contribute a larger fraction of the group mass and are often missing from astrometric surveys like Gaia. We compare the simulations to the Cepheus Far North (CFN) region, and show that CFN groups may have formed in a low-density environment similar to those modelled in STARFORGE but with massive stars not located preferentially in groups. We also question the effectiveness of the kinematic traceback method, showing that it is accurate within 20 per cent only for certain associations with actual virial parameters above 2. However, observational biases can artificially raise the virial parameter by up to a factor 10, making it difficult to evaluate the reliability of the traceback age. Additionally, since stars continue to form during the dispersal of the parent cloud, we find no relation between the stellar-dynamical age difference and the length of the embedded phase.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".