MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980699413 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/725/1/4

VLBI OBSERVATIONS OF THE TYPE I b/c SUPERNOVA 2009bb

2010· article· en· W1980699413 on OpenAlexaff
M. F. Bietenholz, A. Soderberg, N. Bartel, S. P. Ellingsen, S. Horiuchi, Chris Phillips, A. K. Tzioumis, M. H. Wieringa, Н. Н. Чугай

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsVery-long-baseline interferometryAstrophysicsEjectaSupernovaLight curveAstronomyOutflowRADIUSLuminosityType II supernovaGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on VLBI as well as Very Large Array radio observations of the Type I b/c supernova 2009bb. The high radio luminosity of this supernova seems to require relativistic outflow, implying that the early radio emission was "engine-driven," that is, driven by collimated outflow from a compact object, even though no gamma-ray emission was seen. The radio light curve shows a general decline, with a "bump" near t = 52 d, seen most prominently at 5 GHz. The light-curve bump could be either engine-driven or it might represent the turn-on of the normal radio emission from a supernova, driven by interaction with the circumstellar material rather than by the engine. We undertook VLBI observations to resolve SN 2009bb's relativistic outflow. Our observations constrain the angular outer radius at an age of 85 d to be <0.64 mas, corresponding to <4 × 10 17 cm and an average apparent expansion speed of <1.74 c . This result is consistent with the moderately relativistic ejecta speeds implied by the radio luminosity and spectrum.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.235
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations26
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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