MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413017398 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade99d

A Framework for Modeling the Evolution of Young Stellar Objects

2025· article· en· W4413017398 on OpenAlexaff
Theo Richardson, Adam Ginsburg, Erik Rosolowsky, J. Peltonen, R. Indebetouw

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsStellar evolutionYoung stellar objectStellar physicsAstrophysicsAstronomyStarsStar formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Measuring properties of young stellar objects (YSOs) is necessary for probing the pre-main-sequence evolution of stars. As YSOs exhibit complex geometry, measurement generally entails comparing observed radiation to template populations of radiative-transfer model YSO spectral energy distributions (SEDs). Due to uncertainty on the precise mechanics of star formation, the properties inferred for YSOs using these models often depend strongly on the assumed accretion history. We develop a framework for predicting observable properties of YSOs that is agnostic to the underlying accretion history, enabling comparison between theories. This framework links a set of radiative-transfer SEDs with protostellar evolutionary tracks to create models of evolving YSOs. Unlike previous works, we directly relate evolution models to observables through theoretical physical parameters rather than through intermediate, observationally derived analogs. We make flux predictions for YSOs corresponding to stars with birth masses from 0.2 to 50 M ⊙ during their accretion phase following isothermal-sphere, turbulent-core, and competitive accretion histories, showing that these histories may be observationally distinguished by examining the 100 μm and 3 mm fluxes of a YSO. We discuss the impact of dust models and parameter ranges on the output of radiative-transfer simulations through a comparison to another SED model grid. We quantify the degree of confusion between YSO Stages and Classes across a wide range of physical scenarios; for each, we calculate confusion matrices that enable inference of the number of objects of a given Stage from an observed population. Finally, we critically examine the physical significance of various literature Stage and Class definitions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies→French-language works237,207→