MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2514973187 · doi:10.22323/1.236.0878

VERITAS Observations of HESS J1943+213

2016· article· en· W2514973187 on OpenAlexfundno aff
K. Shahinyan

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of The 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2015) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of EnergyOffice of ScienceSmithsonian InstitutionNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsGalactic planeCrab NebulaAstrophysicsPulsarPulsar wind nebulaFlux (metallurgy)Context (archaeology)Point sourceAstronomyAstroparticle physicsGamma rayNebulaGalaxyStarsCosmic rayOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

HESS J1943+213 is a very-high-energy (VHE; >100 GeV) gamma-ray point source detected during the H.E.S.S. Galactic Plane Survey. Radio, infrared, X-ray, and GeV gamma-ray counterparts have been identified for HESS J1943+213; however, the classification of the source is still uncertain. Recent publications have argued primarily in favor of an extreme BL Lac object behind the Galactic plane, though the scenario that HESS J1943+213 is a young pulsar wind nebula is viable as well. We present deep VERITAS observations of HESS J1943+213, which provide the most significant VHE detection of the source so far, with 18 sigma excess. The source is detected at 2% Crab Nebula flux above 200 GeV with VERITAS, with the source spectrum well fit by a power-law function and showing agreement with the H.E.S.S. detection. We also include results from analysis of Swift XRT observations contemporaneous with VERITAS. No significant flux or spectral variability is detected with VERITAS or Swift XRT observations. We place the VERITAS results in a multi-wavelength context to comment on the HESS J1943+213 classification.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.569

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of The 34th International Cosmic Ray Conference — PoS(ICRC2015)Same topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207