MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088733164 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/139/5/2083

A HYPERSPECTRAL VIEW OF THE CRAB NEBULA

2010· article· en· W2088733164 on OpenAlexaff
M. Charlebois, Laurent Drissen, Anne‐Pier Bernier, Frédéric Grandmont, L. Binette

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsABB (Canada)Université LavalCentre for Research in Astrophysics of Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsDoubly ionized oxygenAstrophysicsEmission spectrumSpectrographSpectral lineCrab NebulaSpectral resolutionNebulaTelescopeAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have obtained spatially resolved spectra of the Crab nebula in the spectral ranges 450–520 nm and 650–680 nm, encompassing the Hβ, [O iii] λ4959, λ5007, Hα, [N ii] λ6548, λ6584, and [S ii] λ6717, λ6731 emission lines, with the imaging Fourier transform spectrometer SpIOMM at the Observatoire du Mont-Mégantic's 1.6 m telescope. We first compare our data with published observations obtained either from a Fabry–Perot interferometer or from a long-slit spectrograph. Using a spectral deconvolution technique similar to the one developed by Čadež et al., we identify and resolve multiple emission lines separated by large Doppler shifts and contained within the rapidly expanding filamentary structure of the Crab. This allows us to measure important line ratios, such as [N ii]/Hα, [S ii]/Hα, and [S ii] λ6717 /[S ii] λ6731 of individual filaments, providing a new insight on the SE–NW asymmetry in the Crab. From our analysis of the spatial distribution of the electronic density and of the respective shocked versus photoionized gas components, we deduce that the skin-less NW region must have evolved faster than the rest of the nebula. Assuming a very simple expansion model for the ejecta material, our data provide us with a complete tridimensional view of the Crab.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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