MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1952407255 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/806/2/166

BROADBAND X-RAY PROPERTIES OF THE GAMMA-RAY BINARY 1FGL J1018.6–5856

2015· article· en· W1952407255 on OpenAlexaff
Hongjun An, Eric C. Bellm, V. Bhalerao, Steven E. Boggs, Finn E. Christensen, William W. Craig, F. Fuerst, Charles J. Hailey, Fiona A. Harrison, V. M. Kaspi, L. Natalucci, Daniel Stern, John A. Tomsick, William W. Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsX-rayAstrophysicsBinary numberGamma rayBroadbandAstronomyX-ray binaryOpticsNeutron star

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on NuSTAR, XMM-Newton, and Swift observations of the gamma-ray binary 1FGL J1018.6–5856. We measure the orbital period to be 16.544 ± 0.008 days using Swift data spanning 1900 days. The orbital period is different from the 2011 gamma-ray measurement which was used in the previous X-ray study of An et al. using ~400 days of Swift data, but is consistent with a new gamma-ray solution reported in 2014. The light curve folded on the new period is qualitatively similar to that reported previously, having a spike at phase 0 and broad sinusoidal modulation. The X-ray flux enhancement at phase 0 occurs more regularly in time than was previously suggested. A spiky structure at this phase seems to be a persistent feature, although there is some variability. Furthermore, we find that the source flux clearly correlates with the spectral hardness throughout all orbital phases, and that the broadband X-ray spectra measured with NuSTAR, XMM-Newton, and Swift are well fit with an unbroken power-law model. This spectrum suggests that the system may not be accretion-powered.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.475

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207