MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976704201 · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/746/1/l4

A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF THE DISTANCE TO THE SUPERNOVA REMNANT CTB109 AND ITS PULSAR AXP J2301+5852

2012· article· en· W1976704201 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. Kothes, T. Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsBrandon UniversityHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulsarPhysicsMagnetarSupernova remnantAstrophysicsSupernovaAstronomyPrime (order theory)Neutron starNear-Earth supernovaObject (grammar)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMathematicsCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CTB109 is one of only three Galactic supernova remnants (SNRs) known to harbor an anomalous X-ray pulsar or magnetar. That makes this SNR an object of great importance and a prime target for high-energy astrophysics studies. Those studies rely heavily on the assumed distance to CTB109. There have been three major distance determinations over the last decade, all of which report completely different results. While chaotic distance determinations in the literature are not uncommon for SNRs as a class of object, the wild discrepancy in the distance to CTB109 makes it especially important to revisit and firmly resolve once and for all. In this Letter we bring to bear all available observational information and present a synthesis of evidence that consistently locates CTB109 within or close to the Perseus arm spiral shock, at a distance of 3.2 ± 0.2 kpc.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations53
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207