MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981143042 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/702/1/614

<i>ROSSI X-RAY TIMING EXPLORER</i>MONITORING OF THE ANOMALOUS X-RAY PULSAR 1E 1048.1 – 5937: LONG-TERM VARIABILITY AND THE 2007 MARCH EVENT

2009· article· en· W1981143042 on OpenAlexaff
Rim Dib, V. M. Kaspi, F. P. Gavriil

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlarePhysicsAstrophysicsGlitchPulsarFlux (metallurgy)Static timing analysisAstronomyMagnetar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After three years of no unusual activity, Anomalous X-ray Pulsar 1E 1048.1 − 5937 reactivated in 2007 March. We report on the detection of a large glitch (Δν/ν = 1.63(2) × 10 −5 ) on 2007 March 26 (MJD 54185.9), contemporaneous with the onset of a pulsed-flux flare, the third flare observed from this source in 10 years of monitoring with the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer ( RXTE ). Additionally, we report on a detailed study of the evolution of the timing properties, the pulsed flux, and the pulse profile of this source as measured by RXTE from 1996 July to 2008 January. In our timing study, we attempted phase-coherent timing of all available observations. We show that in 2001 a timing anomaly of uncertain nature occurred near the rise of the first pulsed flux flare; we show that a likely glitch (Δν/ν = 2.91(9) × 10 −6 ) occurred in 2002, near the rise of the second flare, and we present a detailed description of the variations in the spin down. In our pulsed flux study, we compare the decays of the three flares and discuss changes in the hardness ratio. In our pulse profile study, we show that the profile exhibited large variations near the peak of the first two flares, and several small short-term profile variations during the most recent flare. Finally, we report on the discovery of a small burst 27 days after the peak of the last flare, the fourth burst discovered from this source. We discuss the relationships between the observed properties in the framework of the magnetar model.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations83
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207