MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342649757 · doi:10.3847/0004-637x/824/2/111

INTERPRETING THE SUBTLE SPECTRAL VARIATIONS OF THE 11.2 AND 12.7 μm POLYCYCLIC AROMATIC HYDROCARBON BANDS

2016· article· en· W2342649757 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflection nebulaPolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbonEmission spectrumSpectral bandsReflection (computer programming)Spectral lineCationic polymerizationHydrocarbon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We report new properties of the 11 and 12.7 μm emission complexes of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) by applying a Gaussian-based decomposition technique. Using high-resolution Spitzer Space Telescope data, we study in detail the spectral and spatial characteristics of the 11 and 12.7 μm emission bands in maps of reflection nebulae NGC 7023 and NGC 2023 (north and south) and the star-forming region M17. Profile variations are observed in both the 11 and 12.7 μm emission bands. We identify a neutral contribution to the traditional 11.0 μm PAH band and a cationic contribution to the traditional 11.2 μm band, the latter of which affects the PAH class of the 11.2 μm emission in our sample. The peak variations of the 12.7 μm complex are explained by the competition between two underlying blended components. The spatial distributions of these components link them to cations and neutrals. We conclude that the 12.7 μm emission originates in both neutral and cationic PAHs, lending support to the use of the 12.7/11.2 intensity ratio as a charge proxy.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations28
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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