MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3103237421

The Crab Nebula's Wisps in Radio and Optical

2004· article· en· W3103237421 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrab NebulaPulsarPhysicsCrab PulsarNebulaAstrophysicsAstronomyRadio waveStars
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present four new, high-resolution VLA radio images of the Crab nebula, taken between 2001 Feb. and Apr. The radio images show systematic variability in the Crab's radio synchrotron emission throughout the region near the pulsar. The principal geometry of the variable features is that of elliptical ripples very similar to the optical wisps. The radio wisps are seen to move systematically outward with projected speeds of up to 0.3c. Comparing the new radio images to our earlier ones from 1998 and 2000, we show there are also more slowly moving features somewhat farther away from the pulsar. In particular, there is a prominent moving feature to the northwest of the pulsar which has a projected speed of order 10,000 km/s. Striation is seen throughout the nebula, suggesting the presence of wave-like disturbances propagating through the synchrotron bubble. The radio images were taken simultaneously with HST optical observations. Comparing the radio to the optical images, we find that the radio wisps are sometimes displaced from the optical ones or have no optical counterparts. We also find that some optical wisps in particular, the brightest optical wisps near the pulsar, do not seem to have radio counterparts. In the exterior of the nebula, by contrast, there is generally a good correspondence between the radio and optical features.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations51
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207