MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1546292687 · doi:10.1086/312592

The Galactic Worm GW 123.4−1.5: A Mushroom-shaped H [CLC][CSC]i[/CSC][/CLC] Cloud

2000· article· en· W1546292687 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jayanne English, A. R. Taylor, Sergey Mashchenko, J. Irwin, Shantanu Basu, Doug Johnstone

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoWestern UniversityUniversité de MontréalUniversity of CalgaryQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsGalactic planeAstrophysicsTelescopeHERAObservatoryAstronomyStarsParticle physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory's Synthesis Telescope provides the highest resolution data (1&arcmin; and 0.82 km s-1) to date of an H i worm candidate. Observed as part of the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey, mushroom-shaped GW 123.4-1.5 extends only a few hundred parsecs, contains approximately 105 M middle dot in circle of neutral hydrogen, and appears unrelated to a conventional shell or chimney structure. Our preliminary Zeus two-dimensional models use a single off-plane explosion with a modest ( approximately 1051 ergs) energy input. These generic simulations generate, interior to an expanding outer blast wave, a buoyant cloud whose structure resembles the morphology of the observed feature. Unlike typical model superbubbles, the stem can be narrow because its width is not governed by the pressure behind the blast wave or the disk scale height. Using this type of approach, it should be possible to more accurately model the thin stem and other details of GW 123.4-1.5 in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations21
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies→French-language works237,207→