Searching for links between magnetic fields and stellar evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context.About 5% of upper main sequence stars are permeated by a strong magnetic field, the origin of which is still matter of debate. Aims. With this work we provide observational material to study how magnetic fields change with the evolution of stars on the main sequence, and to constrain theory explaining the presence of magnetic fields in A and B-type stars. Methods. Using FORS1 in spectropolarimetric mode at the ESO VLT, we have carried out a survey of magnetic fields in early-type stars belonging to open clusters and associations of various ages. Results. We have measured the magnetic field of 235 early-type stars with a typical uncertainty of ${\sim} 100$ G. In our sample, 97 stars are Ap or Bp stars. For these targets, the median error bar of our field measurements was ${\sim} 80$ G. A field has been detected in about 41 of these stars, 37 of which were not previously known as magnetic stars. For the 138 normal A and B-type stars, the median error bar was 136 G, and no field was detected in any of 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".