The kinematics of the quadrupolar nebula M 1–75 and the identification of its central star
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. The link between how bipolar planetary nebulae are shaped and their central stars is still poorly understood.Aims. This paper investigates the kinematics and shaping of the multipolar nebula M 1–75, and briefly discusses the location and nature of its central star.Methods. Fabry-Perot data from GHαFAS on the WHT that samples the Doppler shift of the [Nii] 658.3 nm line are used to study the dynamics of the nebula by means of a detailed 3D spatio-kinematical model. Multi-wavelength images and spectra from the WFC and IDS on the INT, as well as from ACAM on the WHT, allowed us to constrain the parameters of the central star.Results. The two pairs of lobes, angularly separated by ~22°, were ejected simultaneously approx. ~3500–5000 years ago, at the adopted distance range from 3.5 to 5.0 kpc. The larger lobes show a slight degree of point symmetry. The formation of the nebula could be explained by wind interaction in a system consisting of a post-AGB star surrounded by a disc warped by radiative instabilities. This requires the system to be a close binary or a single star that engulfed a planet as it died. On the other hand, we present broad- and narrow-band images and a low S/N optical spectrum of the highly-reddened, previously unnoticed star that is likely the nebular progenitor. Its estimated V–I colour allows us to derive a rough estimate of the parameters and nature of the central star.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".