MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2090405334 · doi:10.1086/591792

Reconstructing the Guitar: Blowing Bubbles with a Pulsar Bow Shock Backflow

2008· article· en· W2090405334 on OpenAlexaff
M. H. van Kerkwijk, Ashleigh Ingle

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsBow shock (aerodynamics)PulsarHeliosphereBackflowNebulaKinetic energyAstrophysicsRam pressureInterstellar mediumBow waveShock (circulatory)MechanicsShock waveClassical mechanicsSolar windPlasmaGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Guitar Nebula is an Hα nebula produced by the interaction of the relativistic wind of a very fast pulsar, PSR B2224+65, with the interstellar medium. It consists of a ram-pressure confined bow shock near its head and a series of semicircular bubbles further behind, the two largest of which form the body of the Guitar. We present a scenario in which this peculiar morphology is due to instabilities in the backflow from the pulsar bow shock. From simulations, these backflows appear similar to jets and their kinetic energy is a large fraction of the total energy in the pulsar's relativistic wind. We suggest that, like jets, these flows become unstable some distance downstream, leading to rapid dissipation of the kinetic energy into heat, and the formation of an expanding bubble. We show that in this scenario the sizes, velocities, and surface brightnesses of the bubbles depend mostly on observables, and that they match roughly what is seen for the Guitar. Similar instabilities may account for features seen in other bow shocks.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→