On the lifetime of discs around late type stars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We address the question of whether protoplanetary discs around low mass stars (e.g. M-dwarfs) may be longer lived than their solar-type counterparts. This question is particularly relevant to assess the planet-making potential of these lower mass discs. Given the uncertainties inherent to age-dating young stars, we propose an alternative approach that is to analyse the spatial distribution of disc-bearing low-mass stars and compare it to that of disc-bearing solar-type stars in the same cluster. A significant age difference between the two populations should be reflected in their average nearest neighbour distance (normalised to the number of sources), where the older population should appear more spread out. To this aim, we perform a Minimum Spanning Tree (MST) analysis on the spatial distribution of disc-bearing young stellar objects (YSOs) in six nearby low mass star forming regions. We find no evidence for significant age differences between the disc-bearing low-mass (later than M2) and 'solar-type' (earlier than M2) stars in these regions. We model our results by constructing and analysing synthetic fractal distributions that we evolve for typical values of the velocity dispersions. A comparison of simple models to our MST analysis suggests that the lifetime of discs around M-stars is similar to that of discs around solar-type stars. Furthermore, a model-independent spatial analysis of the observations robustly shows that any age differences between the two samples must be smaller than the average age difference between disc-bearing classical T-Tauri stars and disc-less Weak-Lined T-Tauri stars.
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) | 0.001 | 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".