MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A search for the radio counterpart of the unidentified γ-ray source 3EG J1410-6147

2003· article· en· W2170403499 on OpenAlexaff
M. Doherty, S. Johnston, A. J. Green, M. S. Roberts, Roger W. Romani, B. M. Gaensler, F. Crawford

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersGoddard Space Flight CenterUniversity of SydneyCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsPulsarAstrophysicsPulsar wind nebulaSupernova remnantAstronomyNebulaEgretObservatoryTelescopeGiant Metrewave Radio TelescopeSupernovaGalaxyStarsGamma rayRadio galaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have made radio continuum, Hi and X-ray observations in the direction of the unidentified EGRET source 3EG J1410-6147, using the Australia Telescope Compact Array and the Chandra X-ray Observatory. The observations encompass the supernova remnant (SNR) G312.4-0.4 and the two young pulsars PSRs J1412-6145 and J1413-6141. We derive a lower distance limit of 6 kpc to the SNR, although interpretation of positive velocity features in the Hi spectrum may imply that the SNR is more distant than 14 kpc. PSR J1412-6145, with an age of 50 kyr, is the pulsar most probably associated with SNR G312.4-0.4. X-rays are not detected from either pulsar and diffuse X-ray emission near the bright western edge of the SNR is weak. Although there is circumstantial evidence that this western region is a pulsar wind nebula (PWN), the embedded pulsar PSR J1412-6145 is apparently not sufficiently powerful to explain the radio enhancement. The origin of the electron acceleration in this region and of the γ-rays remains unidentified, unless the distance to PSR J1413-6141 is at least a factor of 3 lower than its dispersion measure distance.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 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

Citations17
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207