MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2012008182 · doi:10.1086/525851

16-20 μm Spectra of Carbon Nanoparticles

2007· article· en· W2012008182 on OpenAlexaff
Anming Hu, W. W. Duley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsSpectral lineCarbon fibersAstrophysicsCarbon NanoparticlesInterstellar mediumAstrochemistryEmission spectrumLine (geometry)NanoparticleAstronomyGalaxyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comparison between spectra of carbon nanoparticles in the 16-20 μm range and those of interstellar sources shows that the major emission features attributed to aromatic hydrocarbons in this region are present in laboratory spectra. These features are tentatively identified with bending and wagging modes of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons containing aliphatic hydrocarbon side groups. Detailed comparison of laboratory spectra with emission spectra of NGC 7023 shows that variations in the relative intensity of features at 16.4, 16.6, 17.2, 17.4, 17.8, and 18.9 μm arise, in part, from changes in chemical composition. The feature at 18.9 μm appears to be unrelated to that of other bands in laboratory spectra, mimicking the behavior of this feature in NGC 7023. The line widths of these features in laboratory spectra are typically 5-15 cm −1 and are consistent with vibrational de-localization on a timescale of ~10 −12 s. This indicates that the emitters of these bands in interstellar sources could contain in excess of 10 3 carbon atoms.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies→French-language works237,207→