MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391451480 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad1ced

Where Did the Amaterasu Particle Come From?

2024· article· en· W4391451480 on OpenAlexaff
M. Unger, Glennys R. Farrar

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Cosmic Phenomena
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Particle Physics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsGalaxyAstrophysicsCosmic rayEvent (particle physics)TelescopeAstronomySkyActive galactic nucleus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Telescope Array Collaboration recently reported the detection of a cosmic-ray particle, “Amaterasu,” with an extremely high energy of 2.4 × 1020 eV. Here we investigate its probable charge and the locus of its production. Interpreted as a primary iron nucleus or slightly stripped fragment, the event fits well within the existing paradigm for UHECR composition and spectrum. Using the most up-to-date modeling of the Galactic magnetic field strength and structure, and taking into account uncertainties, we identify the likely volume from which it originated. We estimate a localization uncertainty on the source direction of 6.6% of 4π or 2726 deg2. The uncertainty of magnetic deflections and the experimental energy uncertainties contribute about equally to the localization uncertainty. The maximum source distance is 8–50 Mpc, with the range reflecting the uncertainty on the energy assignment. We provide sky maps showing the localization region of the event and superimpose the location of galaxies of different types. There are no candidate sources among powerful radio galaxies. An origin in active galactic nuclei or star-forming galaxies is unlikely but cannot be completely ruled out without a more precise energy determination. The most straightforward option is that Amaterasu was created in a transient event in an otherwise undistinguished galaxy.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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