MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092456387 · doi:10.1086/317884

A Deep Submillimeter Survey of the Galactic Center

2000· article· en· W2092456387 on OpenAlexaff
D. Pierce-Price, John Richer, J. S. Greaves, W. S. Holland, Tim Jenness, A. Lasenby, G. J. White, H. E. Matthews, D. Ward–Thompson, W. R. F. Dent, R. Zylka, P. G. Mezger, Tetsuo Hasegawa, Tomoharu Oka, A. Omont, G. Gilmore

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsGalactic CenterJames Clerk Maxwell TelescopeGalactic planeAstrophysicsAstronomyMolecular cloudSubmillimeter ArrayBolometerTelescopeGalaxyStar formationStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present first results from a submillimeter continuum survey of the Galactic center "central molecular zone" (CMZ), made with the Submillimeter Common-User Bolometer Array (SCUBA) on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope. SCUBA's scan-map mode has allowed us to make extremely wide field maps of thermal dust emission with unprecedented speed and sensitivity. We also discuss some issues related to the elimination of artifacts in scan-map data. Our simultaneous 850/450 μm maps have a total size of approximately 2.°8 × 0.°5 (400 × 75 pc) elongated along the Galactic plane. They cover the Sagittarius A region, including Sgr A*, the circumnuclear disk, and the 20 and 50 km ssup-1/sup clouds; the area around the Pistol; Sgr B2, the brightest feature on the maps; and at their Galactic western and eastern edges the Sgr C and Sgr D regions. There are many striking features such as filaments and shell-like structures as well as point sources such as Sgr A* itself. The total mass in the CMZ is greater than that revealed in previous optically thin molecular line maps by a factor of ~3, and new details are revealed on scales down to 0.33 pc across this 400 pc-wide region.

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 score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations199
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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