MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Radio Spectral Index Study of the SNRs OA184 and VRO42.05.01

2005· article· en· W3098063777 on OpenAlexafffundabout
D. A. Leahy, W. W. Tian

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsSpectral indexPhysicsFlux (metallurgy)AstrophysicsGalactic planeIndex (typography)Supernova remnantResolution (logic)RidgeSpectral lineSupernovaSpectral resolutionRadio spectrumAstronomyStarsGeologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. New images of the Supernova Remnants (SNRs) OA184 and VRO42.05.01 are presented at 408 MHz and 1420 MHz, from the Canadian Galactic Plane Survey (CGPS) data. The SNRs ’ flux densities at both 408 MHz and 1420 MHz are found and corrected for flux from compact sources within the SNRs. The integrated flux-density based spectral indices (Sν∝ν −α) are 0.25±0.03 for OA184 and 0.36±0.06 for VRO42.05.01. These agree with the respective T-T plot spectral indexes of 0.23±0.06 and 0.36±0.03. OA184’s spectral index is smaller than previously published values. The older flux density values of OA184 from lower resolution data include a contribution from a non-SNR ridge emission region and from compact sources within OA184. Subtracting these contributions results in a spectral index of 0.32±0.06 (38 MHz to 2695 MHz) or 0.28±0.06 (408 MHz to 2695 MHz). Correction of published fluxes for point sources for VRO.42.05.01 results in a spectral index of 0.32±0.05 for 38 MHz to 2695 MHz. We also find spatial variations of spectral index in OA184: ∼ 0.1- ∼ 0.3. For VRO42.05.01, the shell region has α=0.3 and the wing region has α = 0.47. Key words. ISM:individual (OA184 and VRO42.05.01)- radio continuum:ISM 1.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.179
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations18
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAstrophysics and Cosmic PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207