ALMA-IMF Core Working Group, May 06 2021

Google doc : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tnIkhGmBoFEh31udkLDU6WQgOsHq_fA_1QCdcTEKGHY/edit#docs.google.com/document/d/1tnIkhGmBoFEh31udkLDU6WQgOsHq_fA_1QCdcTEKGHY/edit#



Connection:

https://zoom.us/j/92223782076?pwd=K3BlMjdwb2l5KzhGcG9WQ00yVTRVQT09
ID de réunion : 922 2378 2076
Code secret : zZZ7f7



Attendees: 
Not attending:

For memory:
Minutes from our last telecon
Activities of the Core Working Group
Members and their main interests

Agenda:

Debrief on the ALMA-IMF workshop (22 to 26 of March)
Xing: G327 overviewResult: 60-70 cores only.
Cross-matching of getsf versus Gext2D catalogs (40% mismatch!)
Use of MaxLikelihood estimator to check the slope
CMF is flat but depends **a lot** on the temperature you take for cores.
Warning by Yohan: you should adjust the “matching” tolerance according to the beam size of your image. I recommend taking it between 0.5 and 1 time the beam size. This should increase the matching percentage...
Adam: several high-mass core - how are there ~10 cores with ~100 msun?
Friedrich: doubts the sub-fragmentation of the hot core.  Suggests using lines to estimate temperatures (hot cores have plenty of lines with which to do this)   
Sasha: A similar analysis and the same plots must be created for the getsf catalogs. This would show uncertainties of the results. Without comparison of the two methods, the results are difficult to believe.
Jonathan: When the number of cores is small (<100), uncertainties can be significant and bootstrapping is a good technique to assess them (if not obvious, I can explain).
Xing: I will do the same tests with the getsf catalog, thanks for reminding.


Thomas?
Benjamin?