MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091057992 · doi:10.1017/pasa.2013.39

VLBI Constraints on Type I b/c Supernovae

2014· article· en· W2091057992 on OpenAlexafffund
M. F. Bietenholz

Bibliographic record

VenuePublications of the Astronomical Society of Australia · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersYork UniversityNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsVery-long-baseline interferometryEjectaSupernovaPhysicsLine-of-sightAstrophysicsGamma-ray burstShock (circulatory)AstronomyShock frontType (biology)Shock waveGeologyMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Very long baseline interferometry observations of supernovae and gamma-ray bursts provide almost the only way of obtaining spatially resolved information about the sources. In particular, a determination of the expansion velocity of the forward shock, as well as the geometry of the fireball and its evolution with time are possible for relatively nearby events, provided they are radio bright. Monitoring the expansion of the shock front can provide information on the density profiles of both the circumstellar material and on the ejecta. Very long baseline interferometry observations can also potentially resolve gamma-ray burst jets which are not directed along the line of sight, providing crucial confirmation of relativistic expansion in such objects. This review gives an overview of recent results from supernovae, including the Type I b/c SNe 2011dh, 2009bb, and 2007gr, and discusses the prospects for future observations.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.268
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 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublications of the Astronomical Society of AustraliaSame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207