MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988495425 · doi:10.1086/424794

Distance of Three Supernova Remnants from H<scp>i</scp>Line Observations in a Complex Region: G114.3+0.3, G116.5+1.1, and CTB 1 (G116.9+0.2)

2004· article· en· W1988495425 on OpenAlexaffabout
A. Yar-Uyaniker, Bülent Uyanıker, R. Kothes

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsSupernovaBreakoutGalactic planeAstronomyLine (geometry)BubbleStar (game theory)StarsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present new radio continuum and H I images towards the supernova remnants (SNRs) G114.3+0.3, G116.5+1.1, and G116.9+0.2 (CTB 1) taken from the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey (CGPS). We discuss the dynamics of their H I environment and a possible relationship of these SNRs with each other. We discovered patches of H I emission surrounding G114.3+0.3 indicating a location in the Local arm at a distance of about 700 pc in contrast to previous publications which proposed a Perseus arm location. The other two SNRs have radial velocities of −17 km s −1 (G116.5+1.1) and −27 km s −1 (CTB 1) according to related H I. However, the structure of the H I and its dynamics in velocity space suggest a possible relation between them, placing both remnants at a distance of about 1.6 kpc. CTB 1 appears to be embedded in an H I feature which is moving as a whole towards us with a velocity of about 10 km s −1. Furthermore, the off-centered location of CTB 1 in a large H I bubble indicates that the so-called breakout region of the remnant is in fact due to its expansion towards the low density interior of this bubble. We believe that the progenitor star of CTB 1 was an early B or O-type star shaping its environment with a strong stellar wind in which case it exploded in a Ib or Ic event. Subject headings: supernova remnants, ISM: individual G114.3+0.3, G116.5+1.1,

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.883

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 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

Citations54
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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