MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039299344 · doi:10.1086/521985

Submillimeter Array Observation of the Proto-Planetary Nebula CRL 618 in the CO <i>J</i> = 6-5 Line

2007· article· en· W2039299344 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubmillimeter ArrayFlux (metallurgy)NebulaEmission spectrumLine (geometry)Circumstellar envelopePlanetary nebulaAxial symmetryMillimeter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on the results of a Submillimeter Array (SMA) interferometric observation of the proto-planetary nebula CRL 618 in the 12CO J = 6-5 line. With the new capability of the SMA enabling us to use two receivers at a time, we also observed simultaneously in the 12CO J = 2-1 and 13 CO J = 2-1 lines. The 12CO J = 6-5 and 13CO J = 2-1 lines were inteiferometrically observed for the first time toward CRL 618. The flux of the high-velocity component of the 12CO J = 6-5 line is almost fully recovered, while roughly 80% of the flux of the low-velocity component is resolved out. The low recovery rate suggests that the emission region of the low-velocity component of the 12CO J = 6-5 line is largely extended. Continuum emission is detected at both 230 and 690 GHz. The flux of the 690 GHz continuum emission seems to be partially resolved out, suggesting that dust emission partly contaminates the 690 GHz continuum flux. The cavity structure, which has been confirmed in a previous observation in the 12CO J = 2-1 line, is not clearly detected in the 12CO J = 6-5 line, and only the south wall of the cavity is detected. This result suggests that the physical condition of the molecular envelope of CRL 618 is not exactly axially symmetric. © 2007. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved.

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)0.001
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations23
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207