MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967747827 · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/756/2/l30

CALTECH CORE-COLLAPSE PROJECT (CCCP) OBSERVATIONS OF TYPE II SUPERNOVAE: EVIDENCE FOR THREE DISTINCT PHOTOMETRIC SUBTYPES

2012· article· en· W1967747827 on OpenAlexaff
A. Gal‐Yam, S. B. Cenko, D. B. Fox, Douglas C. Leonard, Dae‐Sik Moon, David J. Sand, Alicia Soderberg, M. Kiewe, O. Yaron, Adam Becker, Raphael Scheps, G. Birenbaum, Daniel Chamudot, Jonathan Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupernovaLight curvePlateau (mathematics)PhysicsAstrophysicsLuminosityType (biology)AstronomyGeologyPaleontologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present R-Band light curves of Type II supernovae (SNe) from the Caltech Core Collapse Project (CCCP). With the exception of interacting (Type IIn) SNe and rare events with long rise times, we find that most light curve shapes belong to one of three distinct classes: plateau, slowly declining and rapidly declining events. The last class is composed solely of Type IIb SNe which present similar light curve shapes to those of SNe Ib, suggesting, perhaps, similar progenitor channels. We do not find any intermediate light curves, implying that these subclasses are unlikely to reflect variance of continuous parameters, but rather might result from physically distinct progenitor systems, strengthening the suggestion of a binary origin for at least some stripped SNe. We find a large plateau luminosity range for SNe IIP, while the plateau lengths seem rather uniform at approximately 100 days. As analysis of additional CCCP data goes on and larger samples are collected, demographic studies of core collapse SNe will likely continue to provide new constraints on progenitor scenarios.

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 score0.586
Threshold uncertainty score0.590

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations163
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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