MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981219670 · doi:10.1086/429123

A Survey of Unidentified EGRET Sources at Very High Energies

2005· article· en· W1981219670 on OpenAlexaff
S. Fegan, H. M. Badran, I. H. Bond, P. J. Boyle, S. M. Bradbury, J. H. Buckley, D. A. Carter‐Lewis, M. Catanese, Ö. Çelik, Wei Cui, M. K. Daniel, M. D’Vali, C. Duke, A. Falcone, D. J. Fegan, J. P. Finley, L. Fortson, J. A. Gaidos, S. Gammell, K. Gibbs, G. H. Gillanders, J. Grube, J. Hall, T. A. Hall, D. Hanna, A. M. Hillas, J. Holder, D. Horan, A. Jarvis, M. Jordan, G. E. Kenny, M. Kertzman, D. Kieda, J. Kildea, J. Knapp, K. Kosack, H. Krawczynski, F. Krennrich, M. J. Lang, S. Le Bohec, R. W. Lessard, E. Linton, J. Lloyd‐Evans, A. Milovanović, J. McEnery, P. Moriarty, R. Mukherjee, D. Müller, T. Nagai, S. J. Nolan, R. A. Ong, R. Pallassini, D. Petry, B. Power‐Mooney, J. Quinn, M. Quinn, K. Ragan, P. Rebillot, P. T. Reynolds, H. J. Rose, M. Schroedter, G. H. Sembroski, S. P. Swordy, A. Syson, V. V. Vassiliev, S. P. Wakely, Gary Walker, T. C. Weekes, J. Zweerink

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEgretPhysicsAstrophysicsObservatoryTelescopeFlux (metallurgy)AstronomyGamma ray

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Whipple Observatory 10 m γ-ray telescope has been used to survey the error boxes of EGRET unidentified sources in an attempt to find counterparts at energies of 350 GeV and above. Twenty-one unidentified sources detected by EGRET (more than 10% of the total number) have been included in this survey. In no case is a statistically significant signal found in the EGRET error box, which implies that, at least for this sample, the γ-ray spectra of these sources steepen between 100 MeV and 350 GeV. For each EGRET source location, we list candidate associations and derive upper limits on the integral γ-ray flux above 350 GeV.

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 score0.836
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.216
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 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

Citations32
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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