Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Radio sources of the survey on the declination of the pulsar in Crab Nebula

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A year-long 4.7 GHz survey of the sky at the Crab pulsar's declination detected 205 sources with S > 15 mJy and measured their flux densities, spectra, variability, and luminosities.

desk verdict A useful new 4.7 GHz survey catalog held back by careless internal inconsistencies and an underspecified calibration step, but worth sending to a referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17529 v1 pith:JERI6QTB submitted 2024-11-26 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.GA

A.A. Kudryashova , N.N. Bursov , S.A. Trushkin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.GA
keywords radiosurveyscontinuum:galaxiesgalaxies:activespectravariabilityblazarsluminosityRATAN-600
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper presents a year-long radio survey at 4.7 GHz of the sky strip centred on the declination of the Crab pulsar, carried out with the RATAN-600 Western Sector. It claims to have detected 205 sources with flux densities above 15 mJy over more than 200 square degrees, and to have measured their average flux densities with typical errors of 3.5 to 10 percent. For each source the authors build a radio spectrum from their new measurements plus archived catalogues, so a quarter of the sources receive their first flux measurement above 4 GHz. They also analyse variability on month and three-day timescales, identify nearly all sources with optical and infrared catalogues, and compute 4.7 GHz radio luminosities for the 112 sources with redshifts. The value of the work is that it supplies a uniformly calibrated high-frequency sample with spectra and variability information for a strip that previously had little such coverage.

What carries the argument

The machinery that carries the argument is the amplitude-to-flux calibration curve, constructed as the ratio $S_{4.7}/T_a$ as a function of the offset $dH$ of a source from the centre of each beam, built from a subsample of bright sources with power-law spectra. This curve converts every measured antenna-temperature amplitude $A$ into a flux density at 4.7 GHz, so the entire sample's flux scale and all derived luminosities rest on it. A second working element is the dimensionless variability index $I_{\mathrm{var}} = [(A_{\max}-\sigma_{A\max}) - (A_{\min}+\sigma_{A\min})] / [(A_{\max}-\sigma_{A\max}) + (A_{\min}+\sigma_{A\min})]$, computed from monthly averaged amplitudes after gain correction, which classifies sources as variable or not on a one-year scale.

What would settle it

Re-observe a subsample of these 205 sources with a well-calibrated interferometer or another single-dish telescope at 4.7 GHz and compare the measured flux densities with the values reported here as a function of dH; a systematic offset that grows with |dH| beyond the quoted 3.5 to 10 percent errors would show the calibration curve is biased.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the 2018–2019 drift-scan survey at 4.7 GHz with a three-beam radiometer complex produced a reliable sample of 205 bright extragalactic radio sources (S > 15 mJy, S/N > 50) in a strip of more than 200 square degrees at declination +22 degrees. After correcting records for ephemeris and gain drift using the Crab Nebula as a calibrator, the authors state that amplitude errors are about 3.5 percent for bright sources and about 10 percent for sources near 10 mK, giving flux-density errors of 3.5 to 10 percent. The measured 4.7 GHz flux densities, combined with archived CATS data, yield spectral indices whose distribution peaks near $\alpha \approx -0.9$; most sources (61 percent) have normal power-law spectra, while 22 are peaked-spectrum candidates, 25 are ultra-steep-spectrum candidates, 26 are flat-spectrum quasars or blazars, three are inverted, and eight show low-frequency turnovers. Year-scale variability indices show 97 percent of the sample with $I_{\mathrm{var}} < 0.15$, the blazar B2 1324+22 doubling its flux, and the daily-scale light curves of the 26 brightest sources show modest changes, with a few possible periodic or secular trends.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the calibration curve built from bright power-law sources correctly converts every measured amplitude into a flux density for all offsets from the beam centre, so a systematic error in that curve would shift all 205 flux densities and every luminosity derived from them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For a quarter of the 205 sources, the paper supplies the first flux measurement above 4 GHz, so their radio spectra are now constrained at high frequency for the first time.
  • Most of the sample (97 percent) shows no significant year-scale variability, meaning that single-epoch 4.7 GHz flux densities can be treated as stable for statistical studies of this population.
  • The blazar B2 1324+22 is flagged as strongly variable, with more than a twofold flux change during the year, making it a target for follow-up monitoring.
  • The spectral-index versus redshift flattening for quasars supports the interpretation that distant, powerful quasars dominate the high-frequency source population in this strip.
  • Radio luminosities at 4.7 GHz for 112 sources with known redshifts provide a uniformly measured sample for studying active galactic nucleus luminosity evolution.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the calibration method transfers to other declination strips observed with the same radiometer complex, the same reduction pipeline could produce comparable 4.7 GHz catalogues elsewhere, extending the surveyed sky without new hardware.
  • The daily light curves hint at roughly annual periodicity in three sources and steady brightening in three others; these are candidate cycles that future multi-year monitoring could confirm or refute.
  • Cross-matching the 205 sources against future deeper, higher-resolution surveys would test the completeness of the S > 15 mJy sample and sharpen the classification of the 28 percent of point-like objects whose type is currently indeterminate.
  • The strong variability of B2 1324+22 at 4.7 GHz could be followed with polarimetric or multifrequency observations to test whether the flare follows the standard synchrotron self-absorption picture.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a catalog of 205 radio sources detected at 4.7 GHz in a RATAN-600 survey along the declination of the Crab pulsar (Dec = +22°), observed in 2018–2019. For each source the authors list flux density, spectral index between NVSS 1.4 GHz and their 4.7 GHz measurement, a variability index, and optical/IR identifications. They construct radio spectra using CATS archival data, classify sources by spectral shape, search for intra-year and daily variability, and compute radio luminosities for 112 objects with known redshifts. The main claimed results are the new high-frequency flux measurements for a quarter of the sample, the identification of all sources with optical and infrared catalogs, and the detection of variability, most prominently in the blazar B2 1324+22.

Significance. If the catalog and the derived quantities are reliable, the paper provides a useful flux-limited sample at 4.7 GHz in a 200-square-degree strip, filling a gap in high-frequency measurements for many sources and enabling spectral and variability studies of the population. The authors have made a genuine observational effort, including a year-long monitoring campaign, careful correction of sidereal-time and amplitude instabilities, and cross-identification with several external catalogs. The additional materials containing the full tables are a strength. However, the central flux scale rests on an underspecified calibration procedure, and the identification statistics are reported inconsistently between the abstract/conclusion and the body of the paper, so the scientific claims need support and correction before the catalog can be used as published.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2, calibration curves] The amplitude-to-flux calibration is the foundation for every S4.7 value, yet the description is incomplete: the paper states only that a subsample of bright sources with power-law spectra was used to construct curves of S4.7/A versus dH, without reporting the number of calibrators, their dH coverage, the scatter around the fitted curves, or whether the three radiometers yield consistent curves. The Crab Nebula is used only for gain monitoring, not as an absolute flux anchor, and no independent comparison with a 4–5 GHz catalog (e.g., GB6 or VLA calibrators) is given. Because a dH-dependent bias in these curves would propagate directly into all spectral indices (Section 3), variability conclusions based on flux densities, and the luminosities in Table 3, the authors should provide the calibration details and a cross-check with an external flux scale.
  2. [Section 5 vs. Abstract and Section 6, item 5] The claim that all sources are identified with optical and infrared catalogs is contradicted by the body of the paper: Section 5 states that 11 objects are in empty optical fields, 3 objects are in high-density fields where unambiguous identification was not possible, and 5 objects are identified only with infrared data. Yet the abstract says 'All sources are identified with objects from optical and infrared catalogs,' and Section 6, item 5 repeats 'All detected sources are identified with optical catalog sources... .' These statements overstate the identification completeness and should be corrected to report the actual fractions (e.g., about 6% empty optical fields, about 1.5% ambiguous high-density fields).
  3. [Section 5, identification statistics] The percentages given for identification outcomes appear internally inconsistent with the stated numbers: 11 empty fields out of 205 is approximately 5.4%, not 6%, and the text says empty fields are 6% while also listing 3 sources in ambiguous fields. The authors should present a consistent accounting of the 205 sources by identification status and physical class, and reconcile the statement 'As a result, all sources were identified with optical and infrared catalogs' with the immediately following sentence about empty fields.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 3] Several luminosity entries have errors exceeding 100% (e.g., J043856+215157 with 210% and J104702+221033 with 202%); these should be flagged as upper limits or omitted from the table, since the reported central values are not statistically meaningful.
  2. [Section 4.2] The paragraph beginning 'In Fig. 8 the light curves of flat-spectrum quasars and blazars...' is repeated verbatim, and the text contains other garbled passages (e.g., 'interference/emdash.cyr free records'); the manuscript would benefit from careful proofreading.
  3. [Section 5, Table 2] The entry for J053431+220101 lists 'Crab' as the class; if the Crab Nebula itself is included in the 205-source sample, its nature should be noted explicitly, and if it is excluded, it should not appear in the identification table.
  4. [Section 3] The spectral classification is based on two-point spectral indices from NVSS and 4.7 GHz, but the text uses this to distinguish GPS, CSS, and HFP classes; the authors should state explicitly that classifications are preliminary because they rely on sparse frequency coverage.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract says 'For a quarter of all detected sources, data at a frequency higher than 4 GHz were obtained for the first time' while Section 3 says 'Frequencies above 4 GHz were obtained for the first time for a quarter of the sources'; this is consistent but the wording 'for a quarter of all detected sources' should be clarified to refer to high-frequency data, not to all data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the survey catalog is built from calibrated amplitudes with standard formulas; no prediction reduces to its own inputs.

full rationale

This is an observational catalog paper. The 4.7 GHz flux densities are obtained by measuring amplitudes and converting them through empirical calibration curves S4.7/A versus dH constructed from a subsample of bright power-law-spectrum sources with CATS/NVSS data. This is a calibration of the amplitude scale, not a prediction test: the paper does not claim to verify the power-law assumption or to predict the calibrators' fluxes independently. The 15 mJy sample limit is an output of the stated S/N > 50 and A >= 5 mK thresholds combined with the calibration curve, not an assumed result. Spectral indices are defined from NVSS 1.4 GHz and the calibrated 4.7 GHz values; radio luminosities use the standard Condon formula with literature redshifts; the variability index is computed from amplitudes via the stated modified Aller formula. The largest variability, B2 1324+22, is an observed amplitude change interpreted through the calibration, not a quantity forced by construction. Self-citations (Bursov 2003 data-processing methods; Majorova et al. 2023 beam-shape check; Trushkin et al. 2023 context) are methodological or contextual and are not load-bearing for the central catalog claims; none invokes a uniqueness theorem or forbids alternative interpretations. The underspecified calibration-curve details (number of calibrators, scatter, per-radiometer consistency) and the faint-source variability caveat are legitimate calibration and correctness concerns but do not constitute circularity under the stated criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on a calibration curve fitted to bright power-law sources to convert amplitudes to flux densities, and on the stability of the Crab Nebula as a primary calibrator. These are reasonable but unverified assumptions that propagate into all flux densities. Cosmological parameters are taken from Planck and used to compute luminosities.

free parameters (1)
  • S4.7/A vs dH calibration curve = not tabulated
    Constructed from a subset of bright sources with power-law spectra; used to convert measured amplitudes to flux densities for all sources across the beam offset; any bias in this curve shifts all S4.7 values.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Crab Nebula is a stable primary flux calibrator over 2018-2019
    Section 2 uses Crab's amplitude to calibrate all records by sensitivity; intrinsic Crab variability would mimic source variability.
  • domain assumption The bright subset sources used for calibration have power-law spectra with known fluxes at 4.7 GHz
    Section 2 builds calibration curves from this subset; invalid spectral assumptions would bias the amplitude-to-flux conversion.
  • domain assumption Standard Planck LCDM cosmology with H0=67.4 km/s/Mpc, Omega_m=0.315, Omega_Lambda=0.685
    Section 5.1 uses these values and the Condon 1988 formula to compute luminosities from redshifts.
  • domain assumption NVSS source positions and fluxes are accurate enough for cross-identification and spectral index computation
    Section 2 uses NVSS coordinates to identify sources and Section 3 uses NVSS 1.4 GHz flux as the low-frequency anchor for the two-point spectral index.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Radio sources of the survey on the declination of the pulsar in Crab Nebula." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JERI6QTB

@misc{pith2026241117529,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Radio sources of the survey on the declination of the pulsar in Crab Nebula},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JERI6QTB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17529}
}
abstract

The results of the analysis of 205 brightest sources ( $S>15$ mJy), which were found in the sky survey at the declination of the pulsar in the Crab Nebula, are presented. The survey was conducted at a frequency of 4.7~GHz using a three-beam radiometer complex installed in the focus of the Western Sector of the RATAN-600 radio telescope in 2018-2019. Based on the measurements and data collected in the database of astrophysical catalogs CATS built radio spectra of objects. For a quarter of all detected sources, data at a frequency higher than 4~GHz were obtained for the first time, and for the rest, they were appended. The variability of radiation sources on the scales of the year, from days to months, was studied. The greatest change in the radio flux was found in the blazar B2~1324+22. The search for daily variability was carried out for 26 the brightest sources with an average value of $S_{4.7} \sim 250$ mJy. All sources are identified with objects from optical and infrared catalogs. Radio luminosity is calculated for 112 objects with a known redshift.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Plank Collab.), 641, id. A6 (2020). DOI:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

    doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 2020

  2. [2]

    M. F. Aller , H. D. Aller , and P. A. Hughes , 399, 16 (1992). DOI:10.1086/171898

    doi:10.1086/171898 1992

  3. [3]

    V. R. Amirkhanyan , A. G. Gorshkov , and V. K. Konnikova , 69, 225 (1992)

    work page 1992

  4. [4]

    R. H. Becker , R. L. White , and D. J. Helfand , ASP Conf. Ser., 61, 165 (1994)

    work page 1994

  5. [5]

    J. J. Bryant , J. W. Broderick , H. M. Johnston , et al., 394 (4), 2197 (2009). DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2009.14500.x

    arXiv 2009

  6. [6]

    N. N. Bursov, N. M. Lipovka, N. S. Soboleva, et al., Bull. Spec. Astrophys. Obs. 42, 5 (1996)

    work page 1996

  7. [7]

    N. N. Bursov , PhD Thesis (Special Astrophysical Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Nizhnij Arkhyz, 2003) [in Russian]

    work page 2003

  8. [8]

    J. R. Callingham , R. D. Ekers , B. M. Gaensler , et al., 836 (2), article id. 174 (2017). DOI:10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/174

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/836/2/174 2017

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    J. J. Condon , Galactic and Extragalactic Radio Astronomy, 2nd ed. (Berlin and New York, Springer-Verlag, 1988) pp. 641--678

    1988

  2. [10]

    J. J. Condon , W. D. Cotton , E. W. Greisen , et al., 115 (5), 1693 (1998). DOI:10.1086/300337

    1998 doi

  3. [12]

    Dabhade and Gopal-Krishna , 675, L3(2023)

    P. Dabhade and Gopal-Krishna , 675, L3(2023). DOI:10.1051/0004-6361/202346593

    2023 doi

  4. [13]

    D'Abrusco ,F

    R. D'Abrusco ,F. Massaro , A. Paggi , et al., 215, 14 (2014). DOI:10.1088/0067-0049/215/1/14

    2014 doi

  5. [14]

    Dallacasa , C

    D. Dallacasa , C. Stanghellini , M. Centonza , and R. Fanti , 363, 887 (2000). DOI:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0012428

    2000 doi arXiv

  6. [15]

    De Breuck , I

    C. De Breuck , I. Klamer , H. Johnston , et al., 366 (1), 58 (2006). DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09799.x

    2006

  7. [16]

    W. A. Dent , Science 148 (3676), 1458 (1965). DOI:10.1126/science.148.3676.1458

    1965

  8. [17]

    D. O. Edge, J. R. Shakeshaft, W. B. McAdam, J. E. Baldwin, S. Archer, Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society 68, 37 (1959)

    1959

  9. [18]

    Steppe , 113, 150 (1982)

    Gopal-Krishna and H. Steppe , 113, 150 (1982)

    1982

  10. [19]

    A. G. Gorshkov , V. K. Konnikova , and M. G. Mingaliev , Astronomy Reports 52 (4), 278 (2008). DOI:10.1134/S1063772908040033

    2008 doi

  11. [20]

    A. G. Gorshkov , V. K. Konnikova , and M. G. Mingaliev , Astronomy Reports 57 (5), 344 (2013). DOI:10.1134/S1063772913040057

    2013 doi

  12. [21]

    J. F. R. Gower , P. F. Scott , and D. Wills , Memoirs of the Royal Astronomical Society, 71, 49 (1967)

    1967

  13. [22]

    P. C. Gregory , W. K. Scott , K. Douglas , and J. J. Condon , 103, 427 (1996). DOI:10.1086/192282

    1996 doi

  14. [23]

    D. W. Hogg , arXiv e-prints astro-ph/9905116 (1999). DOI:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9905116

    1999 doi arXiv

  15. [24]

    Hurley-Walker , J

    N. Hurley-Walker , J. R. Callingham , P. J. Hancock , et al., 464 (1), 1146 (2017). DOI:10.1093/mnras/stw2337

    2017 doi

  16. [25]

    H. T. Intema , P. Jagannathan , K. P. Mooley , and D. A. Frail , 598, id. A78 (2017). DOI:10.1051/0004-6361/201628536 M. J. Jarvis , M. J. Cruz , A. S. Cohen , et al., 355 (1), 20 (2004). DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08278.x

    2017

  17. [26]

    M. J. Jarvis , S. Rawlings , C. J. Willott , et al., 327 (3), 907 (2001). DOI:10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.04778.x

    2001

  18. [27]

    I. J. Klamer , R. D. Ekers , J. J. Bryant , et al., 371 (2), 852 (2006). DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10714.x

    2006

  19. [28]

    A. N. Korzhavin , V. N. L\'vov , S. K. Tokhchukova , and S. D. Tsekmeister , Astrophysical Bulletin 67 (2), 225 (2012). DOI:10.1134/S1990341312020095

    2012 doi

  20. [29]

    Kunert-Bajraszewska , M

    M. Kunert-Bajraszewska , M. P. Gawro \'n ski , A. Labiano , and A. Siemiginowska , 408 (4), 2261 (2010). DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17271.x

    2010

  21. [30]

    Lacy , S

    M. Lacy , S. A. Baum , C. J. Chandler , et al., 132, 1009 (2020). DOI:10.1088/1538-3873/ab63eb

    2020 doi

  22. [31]

    R. A. Laing and J. A. Peacock , 190, 903 (1980). DOI:10.1093/mnras/190.4.903

    1980 doi

  23. [32]

    E. K. Majorova , N. N. Bursov , and S. A. Trushkin , Astrophysical Bulletin 78 (3), 269 (2023). DOI:10.1134/S1990341323700141

    2023 doi

  24. [33]

    C. P. O\'Dea , 110 (747), 493 (1998). DOI:10.1086/316162

    1998 doi

  25. [34]

    C. P. O\'Dea , S. A. Baum , and C. Stanghellini , 380, 66 (1991). DOI:10.1086/170562

    1991 doi

  26. [35]

    R. E. Otrupcek and A. E. Wright , 9 (1), 170 (1991). DOI:10.1017/S1323358000025443

    1991 doi

  27. [36]

    I. N. Parijskij , N. N. Bursov , N. M. Lipovka , et al., 87, 1 (1991)

    1991

  28. [37]

    Y. N. Parijskij, N. N. Bursov, N. M. Lipovka, et al., 98, 391 (1993)

    1993

  29. [38]

    Parijskij, N

    Y. Parijskij, N. Bursov, A. Berlin, et al., Gravitation and Cosmology 10, 1 (2005). DOI:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0508065

    2005 doi arXiv

  30. [39]

    Pentericci , J

    L. Pentericci , J. D. Kurk , H. J. A. R \"o ttgering , et al., 361, L25 (2000). DOI:10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0008143

    2000 doi arXiv

  31. [40]

    J. D. H. Pilkington and J. F. Scott , 69, 183 (1965)

    1965

  32. [41]

    K. E. Randall , A. M. Hopkins , R. P. Norris , et al., 421 (2), 1644 (2012). DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20422.x

    2012

  33. [42]

    G. B. Sholomitskii , 42, 673 (1965)

    1965

  34. [43]

    H. J. Smith and D. Hoffleit , 198 (4881), 650 (1963). DOI:10.1038/198650a0

    1963 doi

  35. [44]

    N. S. Soboleva , E. K. Majorova , O. P. Zhelenkova , et al., Astrophysical Bulletin 65 (1), 42 (2010). DOI:10.1134/S1990341310010050

    2010 doi

  36. [45]

    Y. V. Sotnikova , T. V. Mufakharov , A. G. Mikhailov , et al., Astrophysical Bulletin 77 (3), 246 (2022). DOI:10.1134/S1990341322030117

    2022 doi

  37. [46]

    Tinti , D

    S. Tinti , D. Dallacasa , G. de Zotti , et al., 432 (1), 31 (2005). DOI:10.1051/0004-6361:20041620

    2005 doi

  38. [47]

    S. A. Trushkin , A. V. Shevchenko , N. N. Bursov , et al., Astrophysical Bulletin 78 (2), 225 (2023). DOI:10.1134/S1990341323020116

    2023 doi

  39. [48]

    P. G. Tsybulev , Astrophysical Bulletin 66 (1), 109 (2011). DOI:10.1134/S199034131101010X

    2011 doi

  40. [49]

    P. G. Tsybulev , N. A. Nizhelskii , M. V. Dugin , et al., Astrophysical Bulletin 73 (4), 494 (2018). DOI:10.1134/S1990341318040132

    2018 doi

  41. [50]

    van der Laan , 211 (5054), 1131 (1966)

    H. van der Laan , 211 (5054), 1131 (1966). DOI:10.1038/2111131a0

    1966 doi

  42. [51]

    O. V. Verkhodanov , B. L. Erukhimov , M. L. Monosov , et al., Bull. Spec. Astrophys. Obs. 36, 132 (1993)

    1993

  43. [52]

    O. V. Verkhodanov , S. A. Trushkin , and V. N. Chernenkov , Baltic Astronomy 6, 275 (1997). DOI:10.1515/astro-1997-0224

    1997 doi

  44. [53]

    R. A. Windhorst , E. B. Fomalont , R. B. Partridge , and J. D. Lowenthal , 405, 498 (1993). DOI:10.1086/172382

    1993 doi

  45. [54]

    O. P. Zhelenkova and E. K. Majorova , Astrophysical Bulletin 73 (2), 142 (2018). DOI:10.1134/S1990341318020037

    2018 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.