MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019317702 · doi:10.1086/320086

The Inner Nebula and Central Binary of the Symbiotic Star HM Sagittae

2001· article· en· W2019317702 on OpenAlexaff
S. P. S. Eyres, M. F. Bode, A. R. Taylor, M. M. Crocker, R. J. Davis

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsNebulaAstrophysicsExtinction (optical mineralogy)AstronomyBinary numberPlanetary nebulaLine-of-sightStarsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present contemporaneous Hubble Space Telescope Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 and Very Large Array observations of the symbiotic nova HM Sge. We identify a number of discreet features at spatial scales smaller than ~0farcs1 embedded in the extended nebula, with radio and optical emission well correlated in the inner 1''. For the first time we measure the positions of the binary components of a symbiotic star directly. We estimate the projected angular binary separation to be 40 ± 9 mas, with the binary axis at a position angle of 130° ± 10°. The latter is consistent with previous estimates made by indirect methods. The binary separation is consistent with a previous estimate of 50 AU if the distance is 1250 ± 280 pc. Temperature and density diagnostics show two distinct regions in the surrounding nebula, with a cool wedge to the southwest. An extinction map indicates the true interstellar extinction to be no more than E(B-V) = 0.35. This is consistent with a minimum distance of ~700 pc, but this would be reduced if there is a circumstellar contribution to the minimum in the extinction map. The extinction map also suggests a patchy dust distribution. We suggest that a southern concentration of dust and the southwest wedge are associated with the cool component wind. Alternatively, the southern dust concentration is the cause of the cool wedge, since it shields part of the nebula from the hot-component radiation field.

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 score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations22
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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