MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017096887 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/144/2/43

CONTINUUM HALOS IN NEARBY GALAXIES: AN EVLA SURVEY (CHANG-ES). I. INTRODUCTION TO THE SURVEY

2012· article· en· W2017096887 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHaloFaraday effectFaraday cageSpiral galaxyPolarization (electrochemistry)GalaxyStar formationCOSMIC cancer database

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a new survey to map the radio continuum halos of a sample of 35 edge-on spiral galaxies at 1.5 GHz and 6 GHz in all polarization products. The survey is exploiting the new wide bandwidth capabilities of the Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array (i.e., the Expanded Very Large Array) in a variety of array configurations (B, C, and D) in order to compile the most comprehensive data set yet obtained for the study of radio halo properties. This is the first survey of radio halos to include all polarization products. In this first paper, we outline the scientific motivation of the survey, the specific science goals, and the expected improvements in noise levels and spatial coverage from the survey. Our goals include investigating the physical conditions and origin of halos, characterizing cosmic-ray transport and wind speed, measuring Faraday rotation and mapping the magnetic field, probing the in-disk and extraplanar far-infrared-radio continuum relation, and reconciling non-thermal radio emission with high-energy gamma-ray models. The sample size allows us to search for correlations between radio halos and other properties, including environment, star formation rate, and the presence of active galactic nuclei. In a companion paper (Paper II) we outline the data reduction steps and present the first results of the survey for the galaxy, NGC 4631.

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)0.005
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.721

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations111
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207