Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 1 cited by

Magnetic fields on different spatial scales of the L328 cloud

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The magnetic field in the L328 core is 50.5 ± 9.8 microgauss, about 2.5 times the envelope value, making the core magnetically transcritical.

desk verdict The first 850 µm POL-2 map of L328 is a real addition, but the paper's headline claims—50.5 µG core field and a transcritical λ=1.1—rest on a DCF dispersion that the authors themselves show is likely contaminated by a large-scale field bend and outflow-parallel vectors. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19701 v1 pith:DGLLNSNB submitted 2024-12-27 astro-ph.GA astro-ph.SR

Shivani Gupta , Archana Soam , Janik Karoly , Chang Won Lee , Maheswar G This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.GAastro-ph.SR
keywords magneticfieldsmolecularcloudsstarformationdustpolarisationDavis-Chandrasekhar-Fermimethodmass-to-fluxratioVeryLowLuminosityObjectsubmillimetrepolarimetry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper presents the first core-scale (sub-parsec) magnetic-field map of the L328 cloud, made with JCMT/POL-2 polarimetry at 850 micrometres, and argues that magnetic fields grow stronger from the parsec-scale cloud down to the sub-parsec core. The core's plane-of-sky field strength is estimated at $50.5 \pm 9.8$ microgauss using the modified Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi relation, about 2.5 times the envelope value found in earlier optical and near-infrared work. The mass-to-flux ratio of $1.1 \pm 0.2$ puts the core at the transcritical boundary, where magnetic support and gravity are nearly balanced. This matters because it gives a concrete multi-scale picture of how magnetic fields participate in the collapse of a core that hosts a very low luminosity protostar.

What carries the argument

The argument rests on the modified Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi (DCF) relation, $B_{\rm pos} = Q_c \sqrt{4\pi\rho}\,\sigma_v / \delta\theta$, which converts the dispersion of dust-polarisation position angles into a plane-of-sky magnetic-field strength under the assumption that the dispersion is caused by small-scale turbulence in a uniform underlying field. The inputs are the measured position-angle dispersion $\delta\theta = 20.4^\circ$ after error correction, the average $\rm N_2H^+$ non-thermal line width of $0.51$ km s$^{-1}$, and the core density $n(\rm H_2) = 4.7\times 10^4$ cm$^{-3}$. The transcritical classification follows from the dimensionless mass-to-flux ratio $\lambda = 7.6\times10^{-21}\, \frac{N(\rm H_2)/\rm cm^{-2}}{B_{\rm pos}/\mu G}$, evaluated as $1.1 \pm 0.2$.

What would settle it

Measure the line-of-sight magnetic field toward L328-IRS with Zeeman splitting of a spectral line such as OH or CN; if the total three-dimensional field is inconsistent with the $50.5$ microgauss plane-of-sky estimate under a plausible projection (e.g., $B_{\rm total}$ above $\sim64$ microgauss or well below $50$ microgauss), the DCF assumption fails. Alternatively, map the polarisation vectors at higher angular resolution to see whether the $20.4^\circ$ dispersion is dominated by a resolved field bend rather than by turbulent fluctuations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the magnetic field in the L328 core is ordered, aligned with the cloud-scale field traced by Planck and near-infrared polarisation, and strengthened to $50.5 \pm 9.8$ microgauss at core scales, roughly 2.5 times the envelope value. With a mass-to-flux ratio of $1.1 \pm 0.2$, the core is magnetically transcritical, meaning magnetic pressure and gravity are comparable, so the core is neither strongly supported against nor freely collapsing under gravity. The energy budget reinforces this: gravitational, magnetic, and non-thermal kinetic energies all lie within a factor of a few of one another, while thermal energy is far smaller. The paper takes this as evidence that the VeLLO's core is embedded in a strong, ordered field whose geometry is inherited from larger scales rather than reshaped by the outflow.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the $20.4^\circ$ spread in the measured magnetic-field angles is produced by small-scale turbulence in a uniform field, and that the gas density and $\rm N_2H^+$ line widths used in the formula sample the same volume as the 17 polarization vectors; if the large-scale bend in the field lines or motions from the outflow add to the dispersion, the derived field strength and mass-to-flux ratio would be biased.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The field-strength ratio of roughly 2.5 between core and envelope implies that magnetic flux is concentrated toward the core, consistent with the core forming while the field remained coupled to the gas.
  • Because the field orientation is similar at Planck, near-infrared, and 850 micrometre scales, the core field is not randomly oriented relative to the outflow; the small offset between the sub-mm field and the outflow axis suggests the outflow is not dominating the core's magnetic structure.
  • The transcritical ratio of $1.1 \pm 0.2$ means the core is only marginally supported by magnetic pressure, so the rate and outcome of its collapse should be sensitive to the field's orientation and to any additional turbulence injected by the outflow.
  • The energy budget places gravitational, magnetic, and non-thermal kinetic energies within a factor of a few, so neither gravity nor magnetic support alone controls the core's evolution.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the 50 microgauss core field is correct, L328 sits close to the threshold between magnetic support and collapse, so a modest external trigger, such as the ionising shocks from the nearby OB stars that shape the cometary globules, could push it into a more active star-forming phase.
  • A direct Zeeman measurement of the line-of-sight field toward L328-IRS would test whether the plane-of-sky estimate and the assumed field geometry are consistent; this is the cleanest independent check of the paper's central number.
  • The same analysis applied to other VeLLO cores with existing 850 micrometre polarisation data, for example L1521F or L1512, would reveal whether transcriticality is a common trait of cores that host very low luminosity objects.
  • Higher-resolution polarisation of the disk-scale region around L328-IRS with ALMA would show whether the ordered core-scale field continues into the disk or is rearranged by the bipolar outflow.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents JCMT/POL-2 850 μm polarimetry of the L328 core and combines it with Planck, optical, and near-infrared polarization data to trace magnetic field morphology from parsec to sub-parsec scales. The authors derive a core mass of 0.69 M_sun, use the modified Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi relation with 17 polarization vectors and N2H+ line widths to estimate B_pos = 50.5 ± 9.8 μG, and obtain a mass-to-flux ratio λ = 1.1 ± 0.2, which they interpret as magnetically transcritical. They further estimate the energy budget of the core and report a depolarization relation P ∝ I^{-0.98}.

Significance. If the B_pos and λ values are reliable, this is a useful quantitative data point for magnetic support in a Very Low Luminosity Object core, and the multi-scale morphological connection between Planck, optical/NIR, and sub-mm fields is a valuable observational result. The paper benefits from public POL-2 data, a tabulated vector catalog, a transparent DCF calculation, and a cross-check with the Skalidis-Tassis estimator. However, the quantitative core claims rest on a small sample and on assumptions about the origin of the position-angle dispersion; the authors' own limitation statement in Section 3.9 about insufficient data for the comparative study should also temper the DCF-based conclusions.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sections 3.4 and 3.5, Eq. (8)] The DCF dispersion δθ is the load-bearing quantity, but the paper states in Section 3.4 that the field lines show a clear bend on the upper-right shoulder of the core and that vectors in the lower part of the core are parallel to the outflow axis. Equation (8) subtracts only the mean measurement uncertainty (9.7°) from the 22.6° standard deviation and does not remove ordered spatial structure. With only 17 vectors, a coherent bend or outflow-related pattern contributes to the same 22.6° dispersion. Since B_pos ∝ 1/δθ and λ ∝ δθ, a modest reduction of the true turbulent δθ from 20.4° to about 16° would move λ below 1 and overturn the transcritical conclusion. Please quantify the ordered component, for example by fitting and subtracting a large-scale field model or by using a structure-function or autocorrelation analysis, and present B_pos and λ as ranges or limits if this separation cannot be made.
  2. [Section 3.5 and Table 4] The values Δθ = 22.6° and mean 23° are not reproduced by simple statistics of the 17 position angles in Table 4, several of which lie near 95°–115° and one at 178.8°. The paper does not describe how the Gaussian fit and angle wrapping were handled. Position angles are circular data, and with n = 17 both the standard deviation and a Gaussian width are unstable. Because Eq. (8) feeds directly into B_pos, the derivation of Δθ and its uncertainty needs to be specified and justified.
  3. [Section 3.5, Eq. (12)] The quoted uncertainty 50.5 ± 9.8 μG appears to omit the Δv_NT term in Eq. (12): the fractional error 9.8/50.5 = 0.194 equals the sum of δn/n = 0.085 and δ(δθ)/δθ = 0.108, with no contribution from δΔv_NT/Δv_NT. Either provide the line-width uncertainty and propagate it through Eq. (12), or state explicitly that it is neglected; as written the error budget is internally inconsistent.
  4. [Section 3.5] The DCF input density n(H2) = 4.7 × 10^4 cm^-3 and Δv_NT = 0.51 km/s are core-wide averages, while the 17 polarization vectors sample the core region and the N2H+ line widths come from three sub-cores, including S2, which the authors describe as highly broadened and showing infall asymmetry. Non-turbulent broadening in S2 and a possible volume mismatch between the molecular-line and polarization measurements can bias B_pos in either direction. Please test the sensitivity by, for example, recomputing B_pos and λ using only the S1 and S3 line widths or using the S2 width alone.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Section 3.7] In the second case (B_total ≈ 1.3 B_pos), the magnetic energy should be (1.3)^2 × 5.7 × 10^41 = 9.6 × 10^41 erg, not 9.6 × 10^42 erg as printed.
  2. [Table 3 and abstract] Table 3 classifies L328 as 'supercritical', but the text and abstract describe λ = 1.1 ± 0.2 as 'transcritical'; please make the terminology consistent.
  3. [Section 3.2] The statement that T_d = 11.5 K from the SED fit 'is in agreement' with 16 K from Lee et al. (2013) is not convincing because the two values differ by roughly 40%; please discuss this discrepancy and its effect on the derived mass and density.
  4. [Section 3.4 and Figure 5] The figure caption labels '± = 23.0 ± 22.6' while the text says 'variance 22.6°'; clarify whether the quoted quantity is a standard deviation or a variance and in what units.
  5. [Section 3.8 and summary] The abstract and summary refer to a slope α = -0.98, while Section 3.8 and Figure 7 describe a relation P ∝ I^{-0.98} with α = 0.98; please use one sign convention consistently.
  6. [Eq. (14)] The relation N(H2) = (4/3) n r should be identified as a mass-weighted average column density over a uniform sphere rather than a central line-of-sight column, to avoid confusion with the more familiar 2 n r.
  7. [Section 3.5] Since the paper states that DCF assumes a uniform field and a dispersion no greater than 25°, it would be helpful to show the position-angle histogram with error bars and the fitted Gaussian, especially because the sample includes vectors near 95°–115° and 179°.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the DCF B-field estimate and mass-to-flux ratio use measured position-angle dispersions, line widths, and densities without re-inserting the target result.

full rationale

I traced the derivation chain from the SED-fitted dust temperature (Td = 11.5 K) to the core mass (0.69 Msun), volume density n(H2) = 4.7e4 cm^-3, DCF field strength Bpos = 50.5 +/- 9.8 uG, and mass-to-flux ratio lambda = 1.1 +/- 0.2. Each stage feeds the next through the paper's own equations (Eqs. 4-9, 14-15), but the target quantities are not reinserted into their own derivation. delta_theta in Eq. (8) is a measured dispersion of the 850 um polarization position angles, not a parameter adjusted to produce Bpos or lambda. The density enters Bpos through Eq. (7), and the same density enters N(H2) through Eq. (14), but the two effects do not cancel by construction; lambda still depends on the measured line width and on delta_theta. The comparison with the envelope field (about 20 uG, Soam et al. 2015b) is an external published measurement made by overlapping authors, but it is not used to fit or calibrate the core-scale value. The paper's other self-citations to earlier morphology studies are contextual and not load-bearing for the new core-scale result. The stated limitations - only 17 vectors, a visible bend in the field lines, outflow-parallel vectors, and uncertain dust opacity - are accuracy and assumption concerns, not circularity: no equation reduces to a fitted value by construction, and the core-scale estimate is independently derived from the new POL-2 data and published line observations.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivations rest on standard ISM assumptions (grain alignment, DCF, spherical geometry) plus adopted calibration constants. No new entities are invented. The main burden is the validity of DCF and whether the few polarization vectors and averaged line widths describe the same physical volume.

free parameters (6)
  • Dust temperature Td = 11.5 K (S2), 10 K (S1)
    Fitted with a single-temperature blackbody SED; enters mass, density, and DCF field strength.
  • DCF correction factor Qc = 0.5
    Adopted from Ostriker et al. (2001) simulations; Bpos scales linearly with Qc.
  • Dust opacity kappa_nu = 1.85 cm^2/g
    Adopted from Ossenkopf and Henning (1994); mass and density are inversely proportional to it.
  • Gas-to-dust ratio D = 100
    Assumed standard value; mass estimate scales linearly with D.
  • Mean molecular weights mu_g and mu = 2.8 and 29 amu
    Adopted values used to convert density and line widths to non-thermal velocity dispersions.
  • Core radius r = 36 arcsec (0.037 pc)
    Chosen from the 72 arcsec aperture used for photometry; sets volume, column density, and gravitational energy.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Radiative torque alignment and 90 degree rotation: dust polarization traces the plane-of-sky B-field orientation.
    Standard ISM assumption invoked in Sections 1 and 2; if grain alignment is not RAT-like, the inferred B-field angles would be wrong.
  • domain assumption DCF validity: uniform underlying field, dispersion below 25 degrees, turbulent fluctuations dominate the position-angle dispersion.
    Used in Section 3.5, Equation 7; the paper checks the 25 degree limit but cannot verify that the observed bend in the field lines is not contaminating the dispersion.
  • domain assumption Distance to L328 is 217 pc.
    Taken from Maheswar et al. (2011); enters mass, density, and linear scale of the core.
  • domain assumption N2H+ line widths trace the non-thermal gas motions of the same region traced by the 850 um polarization.
    Line widths are averaged over sub-cores S1, S2, and S3 in Section 3.5; the polarization vectors cover mainly the S2 region.
  • ad hoc to paper Single-temperature, optically thin blackbody SED without a dust emissivity index.
    Used in Section 3.2; this simplified SED gives Td = 11.5 K and omits customary beta dependence, which may bias the temperature and hence the mass.
  • domain assumption Spherical uniform core geometry for density, column density, and gravitational energy.
    Adopted in Sections 3.3, 3.6, and 3.7; the core is clearly structured into sub-cores, so a uniform sphere is an approximation.
  • domain assumption Total B-field is either equal to Bpos or approximately 1.3 times Bpos.
    Used in Section 3.7 for magnetic energy because no Zeeman measurement exists; the 1.3 factor comes from Crutcher et al. (2004).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetic fields on different spatial scales of the L328 cloud." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DGLLNSNB

@misc{pith2026241219701,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetic fields on different spatial scales of the L328 cloud},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DGLLNSNB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19701}
}
abstract

L328 core has three sub-cores S1, S2, and S3, among which the sub-core S2 contains L328-IRS, a Very Low Luminosity Object (VeLLO), which shows a CO bipolar outflow. Earlier investigations of L328 mapped cloud/envelope (parsec-scale) magnetic fields (B-fields). In this work, we used JCMT/POL-2 submillimeter (sub-mm) polarisation measurements at 850 $\mu$m to map core-scale B-fields in L328. The B-fields were found to be ordered and well-connected from cloud to core-scales, i.e., from parsec- to sub-parsec-scale. The connection in B-field geometry is shown using $Planck$ dust polarisation maps to trace large-scale B-fields, optical and near-infrared (NIR) polarisation observations to trace B-fields in the cloud and envelope, and 850 $\mu$m polarisation mapping core-scale field geometry. The core-scale B-field strength, estimated using the modified Davis-Chandrasekhar-Fermi relation, was found to be 50.5 $\pm$ 9.8 $\mu$G, which is $\sim$2.5 times higher than the envelope B-field strength found in previous studies. This indicates that B-fields are getting stronger on smaller (sub-parsec) scales. The mass-to-flux ratio of 1.1 $\pm$ 0.2 suggests that the core is magnetically transcritical. The energy budget in the L328 core was also estimated, revealing that the gravitational, magnetic, and non-thermal kinetic energies were comparable with each other, while thermal energy was significantly lower.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.19701 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The dust emission maps with total intensity contours in 100, 160 and 250 𝜇m wavelengths from Herschel/PACS and SPIRE data archive. The 350 𝜇m emission map is from SHARC2. The 850 𝜇m is mapped with JCMT/SCUBA-2 in this work. The star symbol shows the position of L328-IRS. The white circle in the bottom right corners is the beam size in each panel. The contour levels, in Jy/pixel, are drawn at [0.006, 0.017, 0.028] fo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The photometric data of sub-core S2 (given in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Panel (a): Morphology of B-fields obtained from Planck 850 𝜇m dust polarisation observations overplotted (Planck Collaboration et al. 2016a,b) on the continuum-subtracted H𝛼 image of the L328 region. Panel (b): The B-fields mapped with optical R-band (0.63 𝜇m) observations by Soam et al. (2015a) overplotted on the same image as panel(a). Panel (c): The polarisation vectors are shown in blue (J), yellow (H), and red … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: In addition to figure 3, each panel in this figure depicts polarisation vectors of varying lengths, representing different polarisation percentages. The length of each bar in the bottom right corner indicates the corresponding polarisation percentage. 3.5 Magnetic fiel…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The left panel shows the distribution of the degree of polarisation against the position angle of the B-field in R, J, H, and K bands, and at sub-mm wavelength (850 𝜇m) in the L328 region. The right panel shows the mean and variance of Gaussian-fitted histograms of pos…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The upper and lower panels show a comparative study at J, H, K bands, and sub-mm wavelengths by plotting the distribution of the degree of polarisation vs. the position angle of the B-field in the upper panel and the mean and variance of Gaussian-fitted histograms of t…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Polarisation fraction variation with intensity in the L328 core, based on values and uncertainties from POL-2 measurements. 7. The figure shows a negative correlation between 𝑃 and 𝐼 with a slope of 𝛼 = 0.98 ± 0.08 that is consistent with the polarisation hole seen in …

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. DHARA: Data Handling and Automated Reduction pipeline for AIMPOL

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    An automated Python pipeline for AIMPOL dual-beam polarimetry recovers literature polarization values within 2σ for standards and the Alessi 1 cluster and is adaptable to similar instruments.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

81 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    H., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379243 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...599..363A 599, 363

    Allen A., Li Z.-Y., Shu F. H., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379243 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...599..363A 599, 363

    doi:10.1086/379243 2003

  3. [3]

    O., Frau P., Girart J

    Alves F. O., Frau P., Girart J. M., Franco G. A. P., Santos F. P., Wiesemeyer H., 2015, On the radiation driven alignment of dust grains: Detection of the polarization hole in a starless core (Corrigendum) , Astronomy & Astrophysics, Volume 574, id.C4, 1 pp., @doi 10.1051/0004-6361/201424678e

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201424678e 2015

  4. [4]

    G., Lazarian A., Vaillancourt J

    Andersson B. G., Lazarian A., Vaillancourt J. E., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122414 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ARA&A..53..501A 53, 501

    doi:10.1146/annurev-astro-082214-122414 2015

  5. [5]

    Arzoumanian D., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038624 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A..78A 647, A78

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038624 2021

  6. [6]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 2013

  7. [7]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018AJ....156..123A 156, 123

    doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f 2018

  8. [8]

    Astropy Collaboration et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...935..167A 935, 167

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac7c74 2022

Show all 81 references
  1. [9]

    Belloche A., Andr \'e P., Despois D., Blinder S., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20021054 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A

    2002 doi

  2. [10]

    L., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508161 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...649L..37B 649, L37

    Bourke T. L., et al., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1086/508161 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006ApJ...649L..37B 649, L37

    2006 doi

  3. [11]

    Bradley L., et al., 2023, astropy/photutils: 1.8.0, @doi 10.5281/zenodo.7946442 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7946442

    2023 doi

  4. [12]

    Chandrasekhar S., Fermi E., 1953, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145731 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1953ApJ...118..113C 118, 113

    1953 doi

  5. [13]

    L., Berry D

    Chapin E. L., Berry D. S., Gibb A. G., Jenness T., Scott D., Tilanus R. P. J., Economou F., Holland W. S., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt052 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2545C 430, 2545

    2013 doi

  6. [14]

    M., Myers P

    Crapsi A., Caselli P., Walmsley C. M., Myers P. C., Tafalla M., Lee C. W., Bourke T. L., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426472 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...619..379C 619, 379

    2005 doi

  7. [15]

    M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1023/B:ASTR.0000045021.42255.95 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Ap&SS.292..225C 292, 225

    Crutcher R. M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1023/B:ASTR.0000045021.42255.95 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004Ap&SS.292..225C 292, 225

    2004

  8. [16]

    M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA&A..50...29C 50, 29

    Crutcher R. M., 2012, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev-astro-081811-125514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012ARA&A..50...29C 50, 29

    2012 doi

  9. [17]

    Crutcher R., Kazes I., 1983, Astronomy and Astrophysics (ISSN 0004-6361), vol. 125, no. 2, Sept. 1983, p. L23-L26. NSF-supported research., https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1983A&A...125L..23C 125, L23

    1983

  10. [18]

    M., Troland T

    Crutcher R. M., Troland T. H., Lazareff B., Paubert G., Kaz \`e s I., 1999, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1086/311952 , 514, L121

    1999 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Nutter D

    Crutcher R. M., Nutter D. J., Ward-Thompson D., Kirk J. M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/379705 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...600..279C 600, 279

    2004 doi

  12. [20]

    J., Berry D

    Currie M. J., Berry D. S., Jenness T., Gibb A. G., Bell G. S., Draper P. W., 2014, Starlink Software in 2013 . p. 391

    2014

  13. [21]

    P., Huber K

    Czesla S., Schr \"o ter S., Schneider C. P., Huber K. F., Pfeifer F., Andreasen D. T., Zechmeister M., 2019, PyA: Python astronomy-related packages , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1906.010

    2019

  14. [22]

    Davis L., 1951, @doi [Physical Review] 10.1103/PhysRev.81.890.2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/#abs/1951PhRv...81..890D 81, 890

    1951 doi

  15. [23]

    Z., Mitrofanov I

    Dolginov A. Z., Mitrofanov I. G., 1976, @doi [ ] 10.1007/BF00640010 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1976Ap

    1976 doi

  16. [24]

    T., Weingartner J

    Draine B. T., Weingartner J. C., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/177887 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...470..551D 470, 551

    1996 doi

  17. [25]

    F., Pattle K., 2016, POL-2: a polarimeter for the James-Clerk-Maxwell telescope

    Friberg P., Bastien P., Berry D., Savini G., Graves S. F., Pattle K., 2016, POL-2: a polarimeter for the James-Clerk-Maxwell telescope . p. 991403, @doi 10.1117/12.2231943

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    S., Tomisaka K., Machida M

    Fukaya S., Shinnaga H., Furuya R. S., Tomisaka K., Machida M. N., Harada N., 2023, @doi [Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan] 10.1093/pasj/psac094 , 75, 120

    2023 doi

  19. [27]

    A., Jones T

    Goodman A. A., Jones T. J., Lada E. A., Myers P. C., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/176003 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...448..748G 448, 748

    1995 doi

  20. [28]

    S., 1949, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.109.2825.166 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1949Sci...109..166H 109, 166

    Hall J. S., 1949, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.109.2825.166 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1949Sci...109..166H 109, 166

    1949 doi

  21. [29]

    R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    Harris C. R., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature] 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 , 585, 357

    2020 doi

  22. [30]

    A., 1949, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145151 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1949ApJ...109..471H 109, 471

    Hiltner W. A., 1949, @doi [ ] 10.1086/145151 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1949ApJ...109..471H 109, 471

    1949 doi

  23. [31]

    Hoang T., Lazarian A., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13249.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008MNRAS.388..117H 388, 117

    2008

  24. [32]

    S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts612 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2513H 430, 2513

    Holland W. S., et al., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/sts612 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.430.2513H 430, 2513

    2013 doi

  25. [33]

    Juvela M., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201833245 , http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/abs/2018A

    2018 doi

  26. [34]

    E., Lee C

    Karoly J., Soam A., Andersson B., Coud \'e S., Bastien P., Vaillancourt J. E., Lee C. W., 2020, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/abad37 , 900, 181

    2020 doi

  27. [35]

    W., Dunham M

    Kim M.-R., Lee C. W., Dunham M. M., Evans II N. J., Kim G., Allen L. E., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series] 10.3847/0067-0049/225/2/26 , 225, 26

    2016 doi

  28. [36]

    M., Tang Y.-W., Ho P

    Koch P. M., Tang Y.-W., Ho P. T. P., Yen H.-W., Su Y.-N., Takakuwa S., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aaa4c1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...855...39K 855, 39

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    R., McKee C

    Krumholz M. R., McKee C. F., Klein R. I., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature04280 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005Natur.438..332K 438, 332

    2005 doi

  30. [38]

    Kumar S., Soam A., Roy N., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stad1845 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.524.1219K 524, 1219

    2023 doi

  31. [39]

    M., Girart J

    Lai S.-P., Crutcher R. M., Girart J. M., Rao R., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323372 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...561..864L 561, 864

    2001 doi

  32. [40]

    Lazarian A., 2003, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S0022-4073(02)00326-6 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003JQSRT..79..881L 79, 881

    2003 doi

  33. [41]

    Lazarian A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.jqsrt.2007.01.038 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007JQSRT.106..225L 106, 225

    2007 doi

  34. [42]

    Lazarian A., Hoang T., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.11817.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007MNRAS.378..910L 378, 910

    2007

  35. [43]

    T., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307233 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...517..700L 517, 700

    Lazarian A., Vishniac E. T., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307233 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...517..700L 517, 700

    1999 doi

  36. [45]

    W., et al., 2009a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1290 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...693.1290L 693, 1290

    Lee C. W., et al., 2009a, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/693/2/1290 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009ApJ...693.1290L 693, 1290

    doi

  37. [46]

    W., Kim M.-R., Kim G., Saito M., Myers P

    Lee C. W., Kim M.-R., Kim G., Saito M., Myers P. C., Kurono Y., 2013, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.1088/0004-637X/777/1/50 , 777, 50

    2013 doi

  38. [47]

    W., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadcf6 , 865, 131

    Lee C. W., et al., 2018, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/aadcf6 , 865, 131

    2018 doi

  39. [48]

    Lin S.-J., Pagani L., Lai S.-P., Lef \`e vre C., Lique F., 2020, @doi [A&A] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936877 , 635, A188

    2020 doi

  40. [49]

    Lin S.-J., et al., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad0cc1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961..117L 961, 117

    2024 doi

  41. [50]

    W., Dib S., 2011, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116438 , 536, A99

    Maheswar G., Lee C. W., Dib S., 2011, @doi [Astronomy & Astrophysics] 10.1051/0004-6361/201116438 , 536, A99

    2011 doi

  42. [51]

    Mairs S., et al., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-3881/ac18bf , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021AJ....162..191M 162, 191

    2021 doi

  43. [52]

    C., Wilson C

    Matthews B. C., Wilson C. D., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308523 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...531..868M 531, 868

    2000 doi

  44. [53]

    F., Zweibel E

    McKee C. F., Zweibel E. G., Goodman A. A., Heiles C., 1993, in Levy E. H., Lunine J. I., eds, Protostars and Planets III. p. 327

    1993

  45. [54]

    P., Guillet V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...574A.136M 574, A136

    Montier L., Plaszczynski S., Levrier F., Tristram M., Alina D., Ristorcelli I., Bernard J. P., Guillet V., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201424451 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A&A...574A.136M 574, A136

    2015 doi

  46. [55]

    C., Ciolek G

    Mouschovias T. C., Ciolek G. E., 1999, in Lada C. J., Kylafis N. D., eds, NATO ASIC Proc. 540: The Origin of Stars and Planetary Systems. p. 305, @doi 10.1007/978-94-011-4509-1_9

    1999 doi

  47. [56]

    Ossenkopf V., Henning T., 1994, Astronomy and Astrophysics, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994A&A...291..943O 291, 943

    1994

  48. [57]

    C., Stone J

    Ostriker E. C., Stone J. M., Gammie C. F., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/318290 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...546..980O 546, 980

    2001 doi

  49. [58]

    E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/201 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...743..201P 743, 201

    Pineda J. E., et al., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/743/2/201 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011ApJ...743..201P 743, 201

    2011 doi

  50. [59]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201527101 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A...1P 594, A1

    doi

  51. [60]

    Planck Collaboration et al., 2016b, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201526914 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A..26P 594, A26

    doi

  52. [61]

    Plaszczynski S., Montier L., Levrier F., Tristram M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu270 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.439.4048P 439, 4048

    2014 doi

  53. [62]

    Robitaille T., 2019, APLpy v2.0: The Astronomical Plotting Library in Python , @doi 10.5281/zenodo.2567476 , https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2567476

    2019 doi

  54. [63]

    Robitaille T., Bressert E., 2012, APLpy: Astronomical Plotting Library in Python , Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1208.017

    2012

  55. [64]

    H., Adams F

    Shu F. H., Adams F. C., Lizano S., 1987, @doi [ ] 10.1146/annurev.aa.25.090187.000323 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1987ARA

    1987

  56. [65]

    Skalidis R., Tassis K., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202039779 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021A&A...647A.186S 647, A186

    2021 doi

  57. [66]

    W., Dib S., Bhatt H

    Soam A., Maheswar G., Lee C. W., Dib S., Bhatt H. C., Tamura M., Kim G., 2015a, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201322536 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015A

    doi

  58. [67]

    W., 2015b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/803/2/L20 , 803, L20

    Soam A., Kwon J., Maheswar G., Tamura M., Lee C. W., 2015b, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal Letters] 10.1088/2041-8205/803/2/L20 , 803, L20

    doi

  59. [68]

    Soam A., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab365d , 883, 9

    2019 doi

  60. [69]

    G., Acosta-Pulido J., Fern \'a ndez L \'o pez M., Vaillancourt J

    Soam A., Andersson B. G., Acosta-Pulido J., Fern \'a ndez L \'o pez M., Vaillancourt J. E., Widicus Weaver S. L., Piirola V., Gordon M. S., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/abcb8e , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...907...93S 907, 93

    2021 doi

  61. [70]

    H., Fissel L

    Sullivan C. H., Fissel L. M., King P. K., Chen C. Y., Li Z. Y., Soler J. D., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab596 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.503.5006S 503, 5006

    2021 doi

  62. [71]

    M., Arce H

    Suresh A., Dunham M. M., Arce H. G., Evans II N. J., Bourke T. L., Merello M., Wu J., 2016, @doi [The Astronomical Journal] 10.3847/0004-6256/152/2/36 , 152, 36

    2016 doi

  63. [72]

    Tafalla M., 2005, @doi [Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union] 10.1017/S1743921306007009 , 1, 17

    2005 doi

  64. [73]

    pp 212--216

    Tamura M., 1999, in Nakamoto T., ed., Star Formation 1999. pp 212--216

    1999

  65. [74]

    H., Hayashi S

    Tamura M., Hough J. H., Hayashi S. S., 1995, @doi [ ] 10.1086/175965 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995ApJ...448..346T 448, 346

    1995 doi

  66. [75]

    Tokuda K., et al., 2016, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/0004-637X/826/1/26 , 826, 26

    2016 doi

  67. [76]

    N., Hoang T., 2022, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2022.923927 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022FrASS...9.3927T 9, 923927

    Tram L. N., Hoang T., 2022, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2022.923927 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022FrASS...9.3927T 9, 923927

    2022

  68. [77]

    Virtanen P., et al., 2020, @doi [Nature Methods] 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 , https://rdcu.be/b08Wh 17, 261

    2020 doi

  69. [78]

    Wang J.-W., et al., 2019, @doi [The Astrophysical Journal] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab13a2 , 876, 42

    2019 doi

  70. [79]

    Ward-Thompson D., Motte F., Andre P., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1046/j.1365-8711.1999.02412.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999MNRAS.305..143W 305, 143

    1999

  71. [80]

    K., Kirk J

    Ward-Thompson D., Sen A. K., Kirk J. M., Nutter D., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.15159.x , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009MNRAS.398..394W 398, 394

    2009

  72. [81]

    Wu Y., Wei Y., Zhao M., Shi Y., Yu W., Qin S., Huang M., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361:20035767 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004A

    2004 doi

  73. [82]

    M., Evans II N

    Wu J., Dunham M. M., Evans II N. J., Bourke T. L., Young C. H., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/511959 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007AJ....133.1560W 133, 1560

    2007 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.