MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cooling neutron star in the Cassiopeia A supernova remnant: evidence for superfluidity in the core

2011· article· en· W1918548249 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsCassiopeia ANeutron starSuperfluiditySupernovaNeutrinor-processNeutronSupernova remnant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract According to recent results of Ho & Heinke, the Cassiopeia A supernova remnant contains a young (≈330-yr-old) neutron star (NS) which has carbon atmosphere and shows notable decline of the effective surface temperature. We report a new (2010 November) Chandra observation which confirms the previously reported decline rate. The decline is naturally explained if neutrons have recently become superfluid (in triplet state) in the NS core, producing a splash of neutrino emission due to Cooper pair formation (CPF) process that currently accelerates the cooling. This scenario puts stringent constraints on poorly known properties of NS cores: on density dependence of the temperature Tcn(ρ) for the onset of neutron superfluidity [Tcn(ρ) should have a wide peak with maximum ≈ (7–9) × 108 K]; on the reduction factor q of CPF process by collective effects in superfluid matter (q > 0.4) and on the intensity of neutrino emission before the onset of neutron superfluidity (30–100 times weaker than the standard modified Urca process). This is serious evidence for nucleon superfluidity in NS cores that comes from observations of cooling NSs.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 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

Citations387
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society LettersSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207