MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The nature of the ghost cavity in the NGC 741 group

2008· article· en· W2108174771 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesRoyal SocietyLeverhulme TrustUniversity of OxfordNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsBubbleRadio galaxyMagnetic fieldGalaxyRadiative transferAstrophysical jetPlasmaSynchrotronPlasmoidEnergy distribution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We discuss the effects of energy injection into the intragroup medium of the group of galaxies associated with NGC 741. The X-ray emission reveals a large bubble, which in the absence of a currently bright central radio source may have been inflated by a previous cycle of nuclear activity. If the bubble is filled with a light, relativistic fluid, we calculate that in expanding, it has done more than sufficient work to counteract the energy lost from the intragroup medium via radiative cooling; the bubble can provide this energy as it expands and rises. Using upper limits on the flux density of the plasma filling the bubble at 330 MHz and 1.4 GHz, we derive constraints on its electron energy distribution and magnetic field strength. We show that the data require the high-energy cut-off of the electron spectrum to be very low compared to the cut-offs seen in more typical radio sources if the fluid filling the bubble is a conventional relativistic plasma. This suggests that the fluid filling the bubble may not have evolved by expansion or synchrotron losses consistent with a dead radio source, leaving a puzzle as to what the origin of the bubble may be.

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 score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.201
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations36
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207