MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034327354 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/752/2/133

CLASSICAL NOVAE IN ANDROMEDA: LIGHT CURVES FROM THE PALOMAR TRANSIENT FACTORY AND<i>GALEX</i>

2012· article· en· W2034327354 on OpenAlexaff
Y. Cao, M. M. Kasliwal, James D. Neill, S. R. Kulkarni, Yu Lou, Sagi Ben-Ami, J. S. Bloom, S. B. Cenko, Nicholas M. Law, P. Nugent, E. O. Ofek, D. Poznanski, R. Quimby

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAstrophysicsPhysicsLight curveAndromedaNova (rocket)GalaxyMilky WayAndromeda GalaxyTransient (computer programming)AstronomySupernova

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present optical light curves of 29 novae in M31 during the 2009 and 2010 observing seasons of the Palomar Transient Factory (PTF). The dynamic and rapid cadences in PTF monitoring of M31, from one day to ten minutes, provide excellent temporal coverage of nova light curves, enabling us to record the photometric evolution of M31 novae in unprecedented detail. We also detect eight of these novae in the near-ultraviolet (UV) band with the Galaxy Evolution Explorer (GALEX) satellite. Novae M31N 2009-10b and M31N 2010-11a show prominent UV emission peaking a few days prior to their optical maxima, possibly implying aspherical outbursts. Additionally, our blueshifted spectrum of the recent outburst of PT And (M31N 2010-12a) indicates that it is a recurrent nova in M31 and not a dwarf nova in the Milky Way as was previously assumed. Finally, we systematically searched for novae in all confirmed globular clusters (GCs) of M31 and found only M31N 2010-10f associated with Bol 126. The specific nova rate in the M31 GC system is thus about one per year, which is not enhanced relative to the rate outside the GC system.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations57
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207