MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599048417 · doi:10.1086/513501

Automatic Detection of Expanding H<scp>i</scp>Shells in the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey Data

2007· article· en· W2599048417 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalactic planePixelScale (ratio)Identification (biology)Plane (geometry)Signature (topology)Field (mathematics)Cardinal point

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The identification of expanding HI shells is difficult because of their variable morphological characteristics. The detection of HI bubbles on a global scale therefore never has been attempted. In this paper, an automatic detector for expanding HI shells is presented. The detection is based on the more stable dynamical characteristics of expanding shells and is performed in two stages. The first one is the recognition of the dynamical signature of an expanding bubble in the velocity spectra, based on the classification of an artificial neural network. The pixels associated with these recognized spectra are identified on each velocity channel. The second stage consists in looking for concentrations of those pixels that were firstly pointed out, and to decide if they are potential detections by morphological and 21-cm emission variation considerations. Two test bubbles are correctly detected and a potentially new case of shell that is visually very convincing is discovered. About 0.6% of the surveyed pixels are identified as part of a bubble. These may be false detections, but still constitute regions of space with high probability of finding an expanding shell. The subsequent search field is thus significantly reduced. We intend to conduct in the near future a large scale HI shells detection over the Perseus Arm using our detector.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207