MINDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. The chemistry of disks around brown dwarfs (BDs) remains largely unexplored due to their faintness. Despite the efforts performed with Spitzer, we have far less understanding of planet formation, chemical composition, disk structure, and evolution in disks around BDs compared to their more massive counterparts (T Tauri and Herbig Ae/Be stars), which are more readily studied due to their greater brightness. Recent JWST observations, with up to an order of magnitude improvement in both spectral and spatial resolution, have shown that these systems are chemically rich, offering valuable insights into giant planet formation. Aims. As part of the MIRI mid-INfrared Disk Survey (MINDS) JWST guaranteed time program, we aim to characterize the gas and dust composition of the disk around the brown dwarf [NC98] Cha HA 1, hereafter Cha H α 1, in the mid-infrared. Methods. We obtained data from the MIRI Medium Resolution Spectrometer (MRS) from 4.9 to 28 μm ( R ∼ 1500–3500; FWHM ∼ 0.2″–1.2″). We used the dust fitting tool DuCK to investigate the dust composition and grain sizes, while we identified and fit molecular emission in the spectrum using slab models. Results. Compared with disks around very low mass stars, clear silicate emission features are seen in this BD disk. In addition, JWST reveals a plethora of hydrocarbons, including C 2 H 2 , 13 CCH 2 , CH 3 , CH 4 , C 2 H 4 , C 4 H 2 , C 3 H 4 , C 2 H 6 , and C 6 H 6 which suggest a disk with a gas C/O > 1. Additionally, we detected CO 2 , 13 CO 2 , HCN, H 2 , and H 2 O. Notably, CO and OH are absent from the spectrum. The dust is dominated by large ∼4 μm size amorphous silicates (MgSiO 3 ). We inferred a small dust mass fraction (> 10%) of 5 μm size crystalline forsterite. We did not detect any polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. Conclusions. The mid-infrared spectrum of Cha H α 1 shows the most diverse chemistry seen to date in a BD protoplanetary disk, consisting of a strong dust feature, 12 carbon-bearing molecules plus H 2 , and water. The diverse molecular environment offers a unique opportunity to test our understanding of BD disk chemistry and how it affects the possible planets forming in them.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.436 | 0.315 |
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".