MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2568106012 · doi:10.1063/1.4968900

Gamma2016: Highlights and summary of galactic science

2017· article· en· W2568106012 on OpenAlexafffund
Samar Safí-Harb

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersCanadian Space AgencyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsPhysicsAstronomyPulsarSupernovaGalaxySkyAstrophysicsCherenkov radiationPopulationMAGIC (telescope)Gamma-ray astronomyUniverseHigh-energy astronomyGamma rayCosmic rayDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gamma-ray astronomy probes the most extreme and violent events in the Universe. This young, but rapidly blooming, field has witnessed a giant leap in the past decade thanks to the advance of space- and ground-based instruments allowing us to study the non-thermal Universe in the GeV–TeV energy range. The major arrays of atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes (VERITAS, MAGIC and H.E.S.S.) are now providing us with an unprecedented view of the very high-energy sky powered by almost 200 TeV astrophysical sources. The 6th International Symposium on High-Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy (Gamma2016) has gathered scientists from around the world to discuss major observational and theoretical aspects of the field. This review summarizes the Galactic science results presented at Gamma2016, and provides an outlook for the future. This is an observational overview, with focus on supernova remnants (SNRs), pulsar wind nebulae (PWNe) and binaries: after all SNRs and PWNe form the largest population of TeV sources in our Galaxy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.012

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207