MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039019285 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/32

<i>HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE</i>IMAGING OF THE BINARY NUCLEUS OF THE PLANETARY NEBULA EGB 6

2013· article· en· W2039019285 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre for Research in Astrophysics of QuébecUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhite dwarfPlanetary nebulaNebulaEmission nebulaProtoplanetary nebulaHubble space telescopeEmission spectrumSpectroscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

EGB 6 is an ancient, low-surface-brightness planetary nebula. The central star, also cataloged as PG 0950+139, is a very hot DAOZ white dwarf (WD) with an apparent M dwarf companion, unresolved from the ground but detected initially through excesses in the JHK bands. Its kinematics indicates membership in the Galactic disk population. Inside of EGB 6 is an extremely dense emission knot—completely unexpected since significant mass loss from the WD should have ceased ∼10 5 yr ago. The electron density of the compact nebula is very high (2.2 × 10 6 cm −3 ), as indicated by collisional de-excitation of forbidden emission lines. Hubble Space Telescope imaging and grism spectroscopy are reported here. These resolve the WD and apparent dM companion—at a separation of 0 166, or a projected AU at the estimated distance of pc (using the V magnitude). Much to our surprise, we found that the compact emission nebula is superposed on the dM companion, far from the photoionizing radiation of the WD. Moreover, a striking mid-infrared excess has recently been reported in the Spitzer /IRAC and MIPS bands, best fit with two dust shells. The derived ratio L IR / L WD = 2.7 × 10 −4 is the largest yet found for any WD or planetary nucleus. The compact nebula has maintained its high density for over three decades. We discuss two possible explanations for the origin and confinement of the compact nebula, neither of which is completely satisfactory. This leaves the genesis and confinement of the compact nebula an astrophysical puzzle, yet similar examples appear in the literature.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.219
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207