MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1530674953 · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/750/2/l40

EXPANDED VERY LARGE ARRAY OBSERVATIONS OF THE RADIO EVOLUTION OF SN 2011dh

2012· article· en· W1530674953 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupergiantSynchrotronStar (game theory)Kinetic energyConstant (computer programming)Red supergiant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on Expanded Very Large Array (EVLA) observations of the Type IIb supernova 2011dh, performed over the first 100 days of its evolution and spanning 1-40 GHz in frequency. The radio emission is well-described by the self-similar propagation of a spherical shockwave, generated as the supernova ejecta interact with the local circumstellar environment. Modeling this emission with a standard synchrotron self-absorption (SSA) model gives an average expansion velocity of v \approx 0.1c, supporting the classification of the progenitor as a compact star (R_* \approx 10^11 cm). We find that the circumstellar density is consistent with a {\rho} \propto r^-2 profile. We determine that the progenitor shed mass at a constant rate of \approx 3 \times 10^-5 M_\odot / yr, assuming a wind velocity of 1000 km / s (values appropriate for a Wolf-Rayet star), or \approx 7 \times 10^-7 M_\odot / yr assuming 20 km / s (appropriate for a yellow supergiant [YSG] star). Both values of the mass-loss rate assume a converted fraction of kinetic to magnetic energy density of {\epsilon}_B = 0.1. Although optical imaging shows the presence of a YSG, the rapid optical evolution and fast expansion argue that the progenitor is a more compact star - perhaps a companion to the YSG. Furthermore, the excellent agreement of the radio properties of SN 2011dh with the SSA model implies that any YSG companion is likely in a wide, non-interacting orbit.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations63
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207