MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803920522 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aac4a2

A Very High Energy γ-Ray Survey toward the Cygnus Region of the Galaxy

2018· article· en· W2803920522 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrab NebulaPulsarGalaxySupernova remnantTelescopeSupernovaPulsar wind nebulaHigh energyNebula

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present results from deep observations toward the Cygnus region using 300 hr of very high energy (VHE) γ -ray data taken with the VERITAS Cerenkov telescope array and over 7 yr of high-energy γ -ray data taken with the Fermi satellite at an energy above 1 GeV. As the brightest region of diffuse γ -ray emission in the northern sky, the Cygnus region provides a promising area to probe the origins of cosmic rays. We report the identification of a potential Fermi -LAT counterpart to VER J2031+415 (TeV J2032+4130) and resolve the extended VHE source VER J2019+368 into two source candidates (VER J2018+367* and VER J2020+368*) and characterize their energy spectra. The Fermi -LAT morphology of 3FGL J2021.0+4031e (the Gamma Cygni supernova remnant) was examined, and a region of enhanced emission coincident with VER J2019+407 was identified and jointly fit with the VERITAS data. By modeling 3FGL J2015.6+3709 as two sources, one located at the location of the pulsar wind nebula CTB 87 and one at the quasar QSO J2015+371, a continuous spectrum from 1 GeV to 10 TeV was extracted for VER J2016+371 (CTB 87). An additional 71 locations coincident with Fermi -LAT sources and other potential objects of interest were tested for VHE γ -ray emission, with no emission detected and upper limits on the differential flux placed at an average of 2.3% of the Crab Nebula flux. We interpret these observations in a multiwavelength context and present the most detailed γ -ray view of the region to date.

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 score0.598
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations49
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207