MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1830023397 · doi:10.1086/322511

The Supernova Remnant G106.3+2.7 and Its Pulsar‐Wind Nebula: Relics of Triggered Star Formation in a Complex Environment

2001· article· en· W1830023397 on OpenAlexaff
R. Kothes, Bülent Uyanıker, S. Pineault

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPulsarNebulaSupernova remnantAstrophysicsSupernovaAstronomyPulsar wind nebulaNear-Earth supernovaStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose that the pulsar nebula associated with the pulsar J2229+6114 and the supernova remnant (SNR) G106.3+2.7 are the result of the same supernova explosion. The whole structure is located at the edge of an HI bubble with extended regions of molecular gas inside. The radial velocities of both the atomic hydrogen and the molecular material suggest a distance of 800 pc. At this distance the SNR is 14 pc long and 6 pc wide. Apparently the bubble was created by the stellar wind and supernova explosions of a group of stars in its center which also triggered the formation of the progenitor star of G106.3+2.7. The progenitor star exploded at or close to the current position of the pulsar, which is at one end of the SNR rather than at its center. The expanding shock wave of the supernova explosion created a comet shaped supernova remnant by running into dense material and then breaking out into the inner part of the HI bubble. A synchrotron nebula with a shell-like structure (the ``Boomerang'') of length 0.8 pc was created by the pulsar wind interacting with the dense ambient medium. The expanding shock wave created an HI shell of mass 0.4 Msun around this nebula by ionizing the atomic hydrogen in its vicinity.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations85
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207