MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2793292611 · doi:10.22323/1.236.0792

Six years of VERITAS observations of the Crab Nebula

2016· article· en· W2793292611 on OpenAlexfundno aff
K. Meagher

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
KeywordsCrab NebulaPhysicsCherenkov radiationNebulaAstrophysicsCrab PulsarAstronomyGamma rayPoynting vectorCompton scatteringPulsarElectronNuclear physicsOpticsMagnetic field

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Crab Nebula is the brightest source in the very-high-energy (VHE) gamma-ray sky and one of the best studied non-thermal objects. The dominant VHE emission mechanism is believed to be inverse Compton scattering of low energy photons on relativistic electrons. While it is unclear how the electrons in the nebula are accelerated to energies of 10 16 eV, it is general consensus that the ultimate source of energy is the Crab pulsar at the center of the nebula. Studying VHE gamma-ray emission provides valuable insight into the emission mechanisms and ultimately helps to understand the remaining mysteries of the Crab, for example, how the Poynting dominated energy flow is converted into a particle dominated flow of energy. We report on the results of six years of Crab observations with VERITAS comprising 115 hours of data taken between 2007 and 2013. VERITAS is an array of four 12-meter imaging air Cherenkov telescopes located in southern Arizona. We report on the energy spectrum, light curve, and a study of the VHE extension of the Crab Nebula.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations28
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