MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045283065 · doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slu201

Spectroscopy of the Type Ia supernova 2011fe past 1000 d

2015· article· en· W2045283065 on OpenAlexaff
S. Taubenberger, N. Elias–Rosa, Wolfgang Kerzendorf, Stephan Hachinger, J. Spyromilio, Claes Fransson, M. Kromer, Ashley J. Ruiter, I. R. Seitenzahl, S. Benetti, E. Cappellaro, A. Pastorello, M. Turatto, A. Marchetti

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupernovaEjectaAstrophysicsPhysicsRedshiftEmission spectrumSpectral lineAstronomyGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this Letter we present an optical spectrum of SN 2011fe taken 1034 d after the explosion, several hundred days later than any other spectrum of a Type Ia supernova (disregarding light-echo spectra and Local Group remnants). The spectrum is still dominated by broad emission features, with no trace of a light echo or interaction of the supernova ejecta with surrounding interstellar material. Comparing this extremely late spectrum to an earlier one taken 331 d after the explosion, we find that the most prominent feature at 331 d – [Fe iii] emission around 4700 Å – has entirely faded away, suggesting a significant change in the ionization state. Instead, [Fe ii] lines are probably responsible for most of the emission at 1034 d. An emission feature at 6300–6400 Å has newly developed at 1034 d, which we tentatively identify with Fe i λ6359, [Fe i] λλ6231, 6394 or [O i] λλ6300, 6364. Interestingly, the features in the 1034 d spectrum seem to be collectively redshifted, a phenomenon that we currently have no convincing explanation for. We discuss the implications of our findings for explosion models, but conclude that sophisticated spectral modelling is required for any firm statement.

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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations40
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society LettersSame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207