MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068747194 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/708/1/675

LONG-TERM MONITORING OF THE DYNAMICS AND PARTICLE ACCELERATION OF KNOTS IN THE JET OF CENTAURUS A

2009· article· en· W2068747194 on OpenAlexaff
J. L. Goodger, M. J. Hardcastle, J. H. Croston, Ralph Kraft, M. Birkinshaw, Daniel A. Evans, Andrés Jordán, P. E. J. Nulsen, G. R. Sivakoff, D. M. Worrall, N. J. Brassington, W. Forman, M. Gilfanov, C. Jones, S. S. Murray, Somak Raychaudhury, Craig L. Sarazin, R. Voss, Kristin A. Woodley

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsPhysicsKnot (papermaking)AstrophysicsCentaurus AParticle accelerationRadio galaxySynchrotronPopulationAccelerationGalaxyJet (fluid)Classical mechanicsMechanicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present new and archival multi-frequency radio and X-ray data for Centaurus A obtained over almost 20 years at the Very Large Array and with Chandra, with which we measure the X-ray and radio spectral indices of jet knots, flux density variations in the jet knots, polarization variations, and proper motions. We compare the observed properties with current knot formation models and particle acceleration mechanisms. We rule out impulsive particle acceleration as a formation mechanism for all of the knots as we detect the same population of knots in all of the observations, and we find no evidence of extreme variability in the X-ray knots. We find that the most likely mechanism for all the stationary knots is a collision resulting in a local shock followed by a steady state of prolonged, stable particle acceleration, and X-ray synchrotron emission. In this scenario, the X-ray-only knots have radio counterparts that are too faint to be detected, while the radio-only knots are due to weak shocks where no particles are accelerated to X-ray emitting energies. Although the base knots are prime candidates for reconfinement shocks, the presence of a moving knot in this vicinity and the fact that there are two base knots are hard to explain in this model. We detect apparent motion in three knots; however, their velocities and locations provide no conclusive evidence for or against a faster moving "spine" within the jet. The radio-only knots, both stationary and moving, may be due to compression of the fluid.

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 score0.319
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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