MINDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context . Dynamical disk-companion interactions can have a significant impact on the evolution of circumstellar disks, as these can produce perturbations to the material distribution, density, and temperature, affecting their potential for planet formation. Aims . As part of the JWST GTO program MINDS, we analyze the mid-infrared (MIR) emission of three Class II binary systems: VW Cha, WX Cha, and RW Aur. Our aim is to investigate the impact of stellar multiplicity on the chemistry and physics of their inner disk. Methods . We analyzed the 1D spectrum from JWST/MIRI-MRS for primary and secondary disks separately, extracted via a combination of forward modeling with a theoretical PSF and aperture photometry. Following the continuum subtraction, we modeled the molecular lines with 0D slab models. We interpreted the results by comparing our JWST spectra to VLT/CRIRES+, Spitzer/IRS. The extended MIR emission was compared to ALMA data, with the inclusion of the binary DF Tau in our sample. Results . Primary and secondary disks are dramatically different in their MIR emission, with primary disks exhibiting H 2 O-rich spectra and secondary disks being mostly line-poor with respect to the sensitivity of our spectra. When comparing MIRI-MRS to Spitzer/IRS, we observed a broad variability in the line emission of VW Cha A and in the continuum of RW Aur A. The disks around VW Cha BC and RW Aur B show evidence of ionizing radiation and a further comparison with ALMA at high angular resolution dust continuum suggests that the spectrum of RW Aur B is well explained by its ~4 au cavity. All the systems show [Ne II] jet emission and three of them also show spatially resolved emission structures in H 2 , likely originating from outflows and dynamical interactions. Conclusions . Many of the observed features in the primary disks, such as enhanced water emission, could be linked to the increased accretion and radial drift produced by dynamical disk truncation. However, additional mechanisms are needed to explain the large differences between primary and secondary disks, potentially inner disk substructures. This work highlights the need for combining data from multiple facilities to fully understand the observations from JWST.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.435 | 0.297 |
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".