Searching for links between magnetic fields and stellar evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. A small fraction of upper main sequence stars have strong, highly structured magnetic fields. The origin and evolution of these fields are not adequately understood. Aims. We are carrying out a survey of magnetic fields in Ap stars in open clusters in order to obtain the first sample of magnetic upper main sequence stars with precisely known ages. These data will constrain theories of field evolution in these stars. Methods. A survey of candidate open cluster magnetic Ap stars was carried out using the new ESPaDOnS spectropolarimeter at the CFHT. This instrument provides an alternative to the FORS1 spectropolarimeter used up to now for this survey. Results. We have obtained 44 measurements of the mean longitudinal fields $\langle B_z \rangle$ of 23 B6–A2 stars that have been identified as possible Ap stars and that are possible members of open clusters, with a median uncertainty of about 45 G. Of these stars, 10 have definite field detections. Nine stars of our sample are found not to be magnetic Ap stars. These observations significantly increase the information available about low-mass stars near the TAMS compared to our previous sample. Conclusions. We find that ESPaDOnS provides field measurements comparable to those that we have previously obtained with FORS1, and that these data also contain a large amount of useful information not readily obtained from lower resolution spectropolarimetry. With the new data we are able to expand the available data on low-mass, relatively evolved Ap stars, and identify more robustly which observed stars are actually magnetic Ap stars and cluster members. Re-analysis of the enlarged data set of cluster Ap stars indicates that such stars with masses in the range of 2–5 ${M_\odot}$ show rms fields larger than about 1 kG only when they are near the ZAMS. The time scale on which these large fields disappear varies strongly with mass, ranging from about 250 Myr for stars of 2–3 ${M_\odot}$ to 15 Myr for stars of 4–5 ${M_\odot}$. Our data are consistent either with emergent flux conservation for most (but not all) Ap stars, or with modest decline in flux with age.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".