MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995361242 · doi:10.1086/318415

High‐Energy Gamma‐Ray Observations of the Crab Nebula and Pulsar with the Solar Tower Atmospheric Cerenkov Effect Experiment

2001· article· en· W1995361242 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeliostatCherenkov radiationCrab PulsarPulsarCrab NebulaFlux (metallurgy)TelescopeGamma rayTower

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Solar Tower Atmospheric Cherenkov Effect Experiment (STACEE) is a new ground-based atmospheric Cherenkov telescope for gamma-ray astronomy. STACEE uses the large mirror area of a solar heliostat facility to achieve a low energy threshold. A prototype experiment which uses 32 heliostat mirrors with a total mirror area of ~ 1200\unit{m^2} has been constructed. This prototype, called STACEE-32, was used to search for high energy gamma-ray emission from the Crab Nebula and Pulsar. Observations taken between November 1998 and February 1999 yield a strong statistical excess of gamma-like events from the Crab, with a significance of $+6.75\sigma$ in 43 hours of on-source observing time. No evidence for pulsed emission from the Crab Pulsar was found, and the upper limit on the pulsed fraction of the observed excess was < 5.5% at the 90% confidence level. A subset of the data was used to determine the integral flux of gamma rays from the Crab. We report an energy threshold of E_{th} = 190 \pm 60\unit{GeV}, and a measured integral flux of I (E > E_{th}) = (2.2 \pm 0.6 \pm 0.2) \times 10^{-10}\unit{photons cm^{-2} s^{-1}}. The observed flux is in agreement with a continuation to lower energies of the power law spectrum seen at TeV energies.

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 score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations30
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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