MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989609946 · doi:10.1086/301401

Magellanic Cloud Periphery Carbon Stars. IV. The SMC

2000· article· en· W1989609946 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStarsCarbon starSmall Magellanic CloudVelocity dispersionEnvelope (radar)KinematicsDispersion (optics)Large Magellanic Cloud

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The kinematics of 150 carbon stars observed at moderate dispersion on the periphery of the Small Magellanic Cloud are compared with the motions of neutral hydrogen and early type stars in the Inter-Cloud region. The distribution of radial velocities implies a configuration of these stars as a sheet inclined at 73+/-4 degrees to the plane of the sky. The near side, to the South, is dominated by a stellar component; to the North, the far side contains fewer carbon stars, and is dominated by the neutral gas. The upper velocity envelope of the stars is closely the same as that of the gas. This configuration is shown to be consistent with the known extension of the SMC along the line of sight, and is attributed to a tidally induced disruption of the SMC that originated in a close encounter with the LMC some 0.3 to 0.4 Gyr ago. The dearth of gas on the near side of the sheet is attributed to ablation processes akin to those inferred by Weiner & Williams (1996) to collisional excitation of the leading edges of Magellanic Stream clouds. Comparison with pre LMC/SMC encounter kinematic data of Hardy, Suntzeff, & Azzopardi (1989) of carbon stars, with data of stars formed after the encounter, of Maurice et al. (1989), and Mathewson et al. (a986, 1988) leaves little doubt that forces other than gravity play a role in the dynamics of the H I.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.777
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.202 · 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.

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

Citations27
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207