C-WAYS Spring work

Big Picture

We need to come up with a short list of papers to read in detail and discuss. We'll rotate through our short list of papers, and each of you will get one to present to the group. This is modelling a so-called "journal club", a common occurrence in astronomy departments/groups/centers, where the papers are usually selected out of recent astro-ph mailings. We will assemble this list more or less simultaneously as we are writing our proposal.

In practice, there are two kinds of papers in this list -- ones you want to read closely for the astronomy and astrophysics background, for the interpretation, for the big picture... and ones from which you need to scavenge data, and you need to read enough to understand what it was they did, and what kinds of data they are reporting.

Papers to discuss

We will eventually turn this into a nifty table like we did for the BRC Spring work page, but let's collect the papers themselves first, because working with the wiki table format is, frankly, a pain in the @$$.

Papers up for debate as possibly good to read/review/discuss:

• Guieu et al., 2010, ApJ, 720, 46 - our paper from the IC2118 team
• Rebull et al., 2011, AJ, 142, 25 - our paper from the CG4+Sa101 team (I gave you hard copy of this one - strongly recommend we put this on the list)
• Rebull et al., 2011, ApJS, 196, 4 - our paper looking for new YSOs in Taurus using WISE (the one my recent AAS poster was based on, and I also gave you hard copy of this one - strongly recommend we put this on the list)
• http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1962ApJS....7....1L The Lynds Dark Nebula paper

Nifty table

paper	general notes	Luisa's notes	presenter/ present with
Guieu, S., et al., 2010, ApJ, 720, 46 (pdf)	spitzer and optical data to find new YSOs.	the 2118 paper (from my first teacher team).... we could read this, because our work will look a lot like this, but may be better to focus time and energy on CG4 paper and Taurus with WISE paper.
Rebull et al., 2011, AJ, 142, 25 -	Spitzer+optical to find new YSOs.	this is very close to our analysis, though we will use WISE instead of Spitzer.	discuss among the last, since methodology very similar?
Rebull et al., 2011, ApJS, 196, 4	WISE+anything else we can find to find new YSOs. (sound familiar)	this is very close to our analysis, though we will work in a smaller area.	discuss among the last, since methodology very similar?
Ogura K., Sugitani K., Pickles A., 2002, AJ, 123, 2597.	Optical + 2MASS; contains general info of BRCs	Most recent of the Sugitani series of four. Using Halpha to look for YSOs, following up their other work. relevant issues: using multiple wavelengths to find YSOs (see Finding cluster members), spatial resolution (see Resolution), caveats with finding candidates. Nice intro, summary of larger issues, discussion of results. Need to be sure that this catalog is included in our list of previously known YSOs in this region, compare our results to theirs. Finding charts helpfully included so we can match obj. We should discuss this one. Maybe not the other Sugitanis, but if we do discuss the other Sugitanis ("Group S") then they should be combined here.	do this, with rest of group S
Sugitani K., Fukui Y., Ogura K., 1991, ApJS, 77, 59.	SFO article to which many other articles refer ... might be worth a review??	the original SFO, origin of "BRC" terminology, numbers 1-44. covers the northern hemisphere. has nice intro/summary of what's going on in BRCs, CGs, etc. Nice approach of combining two large surveys -- POSS and IRAS; nice clear discussion of weed-down process. Second half of paper (detailed analysis of IRAS colors, etc.) obsolete but has same essence as what we do now. If we do this one, recommend review with other Sugitani, Ogura papers.	do w/ group S 1991
Sugitani K., Ogura K., 1994, ApJS, 92, 163.	another survey	SFO/BRC catalog/nomenclature continued into the southern hemisphere. (NB: all our obj are in the N. Hem paper!). SFO/BRC numbers 45-89. Second in the Sugitani series. Again, much of detailed analysis now obsolete. If we do this one, recommend review with other Sugitani, Ogura papers.	do w/ group S 1994
Sugitani K., Tamura M., Ogura K., 1995, ApJ, 455, L39.	IRAS survey	JHK follow-up of IRAS sources from SFO. relevant issues: using multiple wavelengths to find YSOs (see Finding cluster members), spatial resolution (see Resolution). Shame on them for not publishing a data table or even a figure with the locations of everything they identify as a YSO! BRC 27 is one that they choose to include in a finder chart, but doesn't do us much good. Nice summary of larger issues, timescales. Short paper. If we do this one, recommend review with other Sugitani, Ogura papers.	do w/ group S 1995
Chauhan N, Pandey A.K., Ogura K., Ojha D.K., Bhatt B.C., Ghosh S.K., Rawat P.S., 2009, MNRAS, 396, 964.	Tests S4F theory; survey using Spitzer archival data; not deep enough??	BRC27. Optical (BVIc)+2mass+spitzer/irac. This one we should spend considerable time on. Testing small-scale sequential star formation suggested in earlier 'group S' papers. references 'group M' papers. our method (see BRC writeup or CG4 paper) for contrast in methods. nice intro. multiwavelength and contaminants (see Finding cluster members). As I read this, they are using optical+nir to pick their YSOs, not Spitzer-driven. Whoever is presenting this needs to assess this in detail. We will find a different set of obj, not just classify them differently. Note lots of information is online only, which i attached to article pdf. analysis of Halpha-age and mass function is a bit of overinterpretation IMHO. need spectroscopy first!!	do near the end of the spring. read closely! compare to everything above.
Gregorio-Hetem J., Montmerle T., Rodrigues C. V., Marciotto E., Preibisch T., Zinnecker H., 2009, A&A, 2009, 506, 711.	X-ray survey of CMa region -- using multiple wavelengths and methods to find YSOs	BRC 27. ROSAT+VRI data. relevant issues: using multiple wavelengths to find YSOs (see Finding cluster members), spatial resolution (see Resolution). Mentions Chandra, XMM data, both of which would cover BRC 27, but I can't find the subsequent analysis that they advertise. We need to include this catalog in what we accumulate, and compare our results to theirs. Not clear if we need to actually discuss it or not.	should read enough to understand and scavenge data.
Shevchenko V. S., Ezhkova O. V., Ibrahimov M. A., van den Ancker M. E., Tjin A, Djie H. R. E., 1999, MNRAS, 310, 210.	Optical catalog that includes both BRC 27 and BRC 34; contains general info on BRCs	BRC 27 only. optical. age, distance estimate. photoelectric UBVR(!) and objective prism spectroscopy for Halpha and spectral types. combined with IRAS. using multiple wavelengths to find YSOs (see Finding cluster members). We need to include this catalog in what we accumulate, and compare our results to theirs. This is not necessarily a trivial task, as they have photographic 1950 coordinates, which will need to be precessed and then matched to a 2mass source to get a more recent position estimate (they have finding charts, which should help), but it only needs to be done for the objects in our field of view (our data). Not clear if we need to actually discuss it or not. It's old methodology (from an Uzbecki telescope), but good stuff, especially the spectral types. nice "put-it-in-context" discussion at the top for the entire CMa R1 region.	should read enough to understand and scavenge data.
Wiramihardja S.D., Kogure T., Nakano M., Yoshida S., 1986, PASJ, 38, 395.	Optical survey of CMa region	BRC 27. Halpha plus photographic UBV.(!) using multiple wavelengths to find YSOs (see Finding cluster members). We need to include this catalog in what we accumulate, and compare our results to theirs. This is not necessarily a trivial task, as they have photographic 1950 coordinates, which will need to be precessed and then matched to a 2mass source to get a more recent position estimate (they say they have finding charts, which should help), but it only needs to be done for the objects in our field of view (our data). Nice cross matching that they've already done for their previously identified objects. Not clear if we need to actually discuss it or not. It's a really old paper.	should read enough to understand and scavenge data.
		this line separates the "should read" (above) from the "should skip" (below)
Soares J.B., Bica E., 2002, A&A, 388, 172.	2MASS obs of BRC 27	BRC 27. 2MASS. Editing ghastly. Really simple paper. In theory, we should include their results in what we accumulate, and compare our results, though (a) they are using "prehistoric" 2mass data reduction, and (b) they really make it hard, as they don't even tell us how many YSOs they think they've found, just the numbers of objects for which they've done photometry. So I don't think we really can compare our results to this one. However, nice "put it in larger context" discussion with wide-field IRAS image.	skip it unless you want to see the IRAS image.
Soares J.B., Bica E., 2003, A&A, 404, 217.	2MASS + optical survey	Simple paper elsewhere in the same cloud as BRC 27. Same sort of 2MASS analysis as their 2002 paper. Still archaic 2MASS data reduction. Skip it.	skip it.
Allen L., et al. 2011, American Astronomical Society, BAAS, 43, 258.15.	Poster from AAS ... good to review?	ok, but not a lot of content beyond the images and their 'big picture' work.	skip?
Morgan L. K., Thompson M. A., Urquhart J. S., White G. J., Mio J., 2004, A&A, 426, 535. note has erratum too.	Radio and mid-ir survey	NRAO/NVSS/VLA (20cm), DSS, MSX data. both 27 and 34 in here, though 34 is a non-det. nice intro to the physics, though they get into far more math than we need to. relevant issues: this radio is thermal (free-free emission). they smoothed data -- spatial resolution (see Resolution). another nice use of three big surveys. sfo 27 in the online-only fig 1. T3 also online only. identifying ionizing source is not the same as identifying point sources in the images themselves. it's not clear that this is all that relevant for us. part of a PhD thesis.	Drop... if you want to, read with "Group M" but skip the math. 2004
Morgan L. K., Thompson M. A., Urquhart J. S., White G. J., 2008, A&A, 477, 557.	SCUBA survey	SCUBA submm survey (450+850 um) plus IRAS (12, 25, 60, 100 um), MSX, and 2MASS (erroneously identified as 2mm but really 2 micron). both 27 and 34 in here. next part of a PhD thesis. lots of nice overview, summary (as would be expected for a thesis) spread throughout article. seems to be a really long paper, but is almost all figures in the appendix. relevant issues: how the objects they are talking about (at long and short wavelengths) compare to what we see in our images (see Resolution and their, e.g., fig 4). Forward reference to Spitzer data analysis like ours but then says have already looked for GLIMPSE, 24 um obs. They are only looking at low-res flux densities. Appendix may be useful for scavenging additional targets if we want to do more analysis on more targets.	Probably the most worth reading of "Group M"; skip the math. 2008
Morgan L. K., Urquhart J. S., Thompson M. A., 2009, MNRAS, 400, 1726.	Radio, mid-ir, SCUBA observations; redefined SFO catalog	JCMT (CO) observations. both 27 and 34 in here. 22 arcsec resolution! (see Resolution and their fig 2 here.) Likely last of his thesis, or first of his postdoc. (Look, his address changed, so this was published while he was a postdoc, but it's the same collaborators as before at his old institution, so my guess it's leftover thesis work.) They think 27 has been triggered, 34 not; this provides a nice compare-and-contrast opportunity for our write-up. Quick read.	read with "Group M" for fig 2. 2009
Valdettaro R., Palla F., Brand J., Cesaroni R., 2005, A&A, 443, 535.	Radio survey of water masers	22.2 GHz (=1.35 cm if I did my math right). Really nice intro summarizing the big picture. Following up on Morgan and similar work asserting high-mass stars forming in BRCs by looking for masers. Our objects observed, not detected. Finding lots of non-detections, suggesting that low-mass stars forming instead. Nice, short writeup of basically a non-result, and I think they've gotten the interpretation spot-on. Nice to at least scan after the Morgan stuff for context. larger issues: spatial resolution (see Resolution). Again!! :)	maybe skip?
Valdettaro R., Migenes V., Trinidad M.A., Brand J., Palla F., 2008, ApJ, 675, 1352.	VLA obs of water masers; BRC 34	more water masers, following up 2005 work. BRC 34 observed, not detected. nice intro that puts their work in context with the rest of what they've done. Lots more non-dets, interpreted as forming low mass and/or older stars than had been assumed. I think they've gotten the interpretation spot-on.	maybe skip?
Makovoz D., Marleau F. R., 2005, PASP, 117, 1113.	MOPEX info	VERY technical, not a manual, and not all that terribly relevant to what we're doing. let's drop this one from the list.	(drop)