MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986066476 · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/745/1/l11

FULLERENES AND PROTO-FULLERENES IN INTERSTELLAR CARBON DUST

2012· article· en· W1986066476 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFullereneCarbon fibersSpectral lineAmorphous carbonMoleculeEmission spectrumCosmic dustYield (engineering)Amorphous solid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laboratory spectra of hydrogenated amorphous carbon (HAC) particles prepared under a variety of conditions show spectral features at 7.05, 8.5, 17.4, and 18.9 μm (1418, 1176, 575, and 529 cm −1 ) that have been associated with emission from C 60 molecules. These lines occur in the spectra even though C 60 molecules as such are not present in our samples. It appears that these four spectral lines in HAC can instead be associated with precursor molecules or "proto-fullerenes" (PFs) that subsequently react to yield C 60 . We develop a model tracing the evolution and de-hydrogenation of HAC dust and show that the observation of an emission feature at 16.4 μm (610 cm −1 ) in astronomical spectra signals the presence of the pentagonal carbon rings required for the formation of fullerenes. We suggest that the set of four IR emission lines previously identified with C 60 in many objects that also show the 16.4 μm feature and other polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon bands arise from PFs rather than C 60 . Tc1 is an example of a source in which de-hydrogenation has proceeded to the point where only fullerenes are present.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.224
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations27
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207