The Center of Expansion and Age of the Oxygen-rich Supernova Remnant 1E 0102.2-7219
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present new proper-motion measurements of optically emitting oxygen-rich knots of supernova remnant 1E 0102.2-7219 (E0102), which are used to estimate the remnant’s center of expansion and age. Four epochs of high-resolution Hubble Space Telescope images spanning 19 yr were retrieved and analyzed. We found a robust center of expansion of α = 1h04m02.ˢ48 and δ = −72°01′53.″92 (J2000) with 1σ uncertainty of 1.″77 using 45 knots from images obtained with the Advanced Camera for Surveys using the F475W filter in 2003 and 2013 having the highest signal-to-noise ratio. We also estimate an upper limit explosion age of 1738 ± 175 yr by selecting the knots with the highest proper motions and these knots are assumed to be the least decelerated. We find evidence of an asymmetry in the proper motions of the knots as a function of position angle. We conclude that these asymmetries were most likely caused by interaction between E0102's original supernova blast wave and an inhomogeneous surrounding environment, as opposed to intrinsic explosion asymmetry. The observed nonhomologous expansion suggests that the use of a free expansion model inaccurately offsets the center of expansion and leads to an overestimated explosion age. We discuss our findings as they compare to previous age and center of expansion estimates of E0102, as well as their relevance to a recently identified candidate central compact object.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".