MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2512192954 · doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/2/155

A VLA SURVEY FOR FAINT COMPACT RADIO SOURCES IN THE ORION NEBULA CLUSTER

2016· article· en· W2512192954 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick Sheehan, J. A. Eisner, Rita K. Mann, Jonathan P. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsMillimeterAstrophysicsOrion NebulaNebulaCluster (spacecraft)Flux (metallurgy)WavelengthAstronomyMolecular cloudOpticsStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We present Karl G. Jansky Very Large Array 1.3, 3.6, and 6 cm continuum maps of compact radio sources in the Orion Nebular Cluster (ONC). We mosaicked 34 arcmin2 at 1.3 cm, 70 arcmin2 at 3.6 cm and 109 arcmin2 at 6 cm, containing 778 near-infrared detected young stellar objects and 190 Hubble Space Telescope-identified proplyds (with significant overlap between those characterizations). We detected radio emission from 175 compact radio sources in the ONC, including 26 sources that were detected for the first time at these wavelengths. For each detected source, we fitted a simple free–free and dust emission model to characterize the radio emission. We extrapolate the free–free emission spectrum model for each source to ALMA bands to illustrate how these measurements could be used to correctly measure protoplanetary disk dust masses from submillimeter flux measurements. Finally, we compare the fluxes measured in this survey with previously measured fluxes for our targets, as well as four separate epochs of 1.3 cm data, to search for and quantify the variability of our sources.

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)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations13
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies→French-language works237,207→