MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978992137 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20042431

Radio spectral index variations of the SNR HB3

2005· article· en· W1978992137 on OpenAlexafffundabout

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSpectral indexFlux (metallurgy)Galactic planeRadio spectrumTelescopeSpectral slopeRadio telescopeIndex (typography)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present images of the SNR HB3 at both 408 MHz and 1420 MHz from the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey mainly based on data from the Synthesis Telescope of the Dominion Radio Astrophysical Observatory. We reproduce the 100 m-Effelsberg HB3 image at 2695 MHz at large scale, and find that there exists a background emission gradient across the HB3 area. Based on our analysis of background emission and the boundary between W3 and HB3, we give HB3's flux density as Jy at 408 MHz and Jy at 1420 MHz, after subtracting flux from compact sources within HB3. The integrated flux-density-based spectral index between 408 MHz and 1420 MHz is . The averaged T–T plot spectral index using all subareas is 0.36. Our measurement values are less than a previously published value of 0.6. The 408–1420 MHz spectral index varies spatially in HB3 in the range 0.1 to 0.7. We investigate the data used by previous authors, and consider more data at 232 MHz, 3650 MHz and 3900 MHz which are not included in previous calculations. There is evidence for two spectral indices for HB3 in the radio band, i.e., 0.63 (38–610 MHz) and 0.32 (408–3900 MHz). This is consistent with the spatial variations: the low frequency data mainly reflects the steeper indices and the high frequency data mainly reflects the flatter indices.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.730

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations32
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207