MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059327536 · doi:10.1086/431281

An Upper Limit on the Expansion Velocity of Gamma-Ray Burst Candidate SN 2001em

2005· article· en· W2059327536 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAngular diameterRADIUSSupernovaAngular resolution (graph drawing)Line-of-sightVery-long-baseline interferometryJet (fluid)Isotropy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on VLBI observations of the Type I b/c supernova SN 2001em, 3 years after the explosion. It has been suggested that SN 2001em might be a jet-driven gamma-ray burst (GRB), with the jet oriented far from the line of sight so that the GRB would not be visible from Earth. To test this conjecture, we determined the size of SN 2001em. It is only marginally resolved at our resolution of ~0.9 mas. The 3 σ upper limit on the major axis angular size of the radio source was 0.59 mas (FWHM of an elliptical Gaussian), corresponding to a one-sided apparent expansion velocity of 70,000 km s -1 for a distance of 80 Mpc. No low-brightness jet was seen in our image to a level of 4% of the peak brightness. If we assume instead a spherical shell geometry typical of a supernova, we find the angular radius of SN 2001em was 0.17 mas, implying an isotropic expansion velocity of 20,000 km s -1 , which is comparable to the expansion velocities of supernova shells. Our observations are therefore not consistent with a relativistically expanding radio source in SN 2001em but are instead consistent with a supernova shell origin of SN 2001's radio emission.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations22
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207