Bibliographic record
Abstract
To gain insight into the nature of the peculiar Herbig‐Haro object HH 255 (also called Burnham's nebula), we use previously published observations to derive information about the emission‐line fluxes as a function of position within HH 255 and compare them with the well‐studied and relatively well behaved bow shock HH 1. There are some qualitative similarities in the Hα and [O iii ] λ5007 lines in both objects. However, in contrast to the expectation of the standard bow‐shock model, the fluxes of the [O i ] λ6300, [S ii ] λ6731, and [N ii ] λ6583 lines are essentially constant along the axis of the flow, while the electron density decreases, over a large distance within HH 255. We also explore the possibility that HH 255 represents the emission behind a standing or quasi‐stationary shock. The shock faces upwind, and we suggest, using theoretical arguments, that it may be associated with the collimation of the southern outflow from T Tauri. Using a simplified magnetohydrodynamic simulation to illustrate the basic concept, we demonstrate that the existence of such a shock at the north edge of HH 255 could indeed explain its unusual kinematic and ionization properties. Whether or not such a shock can explain the detailed emission‐line stratification remains an open question.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".