MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982960809 · doi:10.1017/s1743921313009526

X-ray imaging and spectroscopic study of the SNR Kes 73 hosting the magnetar 1E 1841–045

2013· article· en· W1982960809 on OpenAlexaff
Harsha Sanjeev Kumar, Samar Safí-Harb, Patrick Slane, E. V. Gotthelf

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Astronomical Union · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsMagnetarEjectaSupernova remnantNeutron starSupernovaPulsarIonizationAstronomyStarsIon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present the first detailed Chandra and XMM-Newton study of the young Galactic supernova remnant (SNR) Kes 73 associated with the anomalous X-ray pulsar (AXP) 1E 1841–045. Images of the remnant in the radio (20 cm), infrared (24 μm), and X-rays (0.5–7 keV) reveal a spherical morphology with a bright western limb. High-resolution Chandra images show bright diffuse emission across the remnant, with several small-scale clumpy and knotty structures filling the SNR interior. The overall Chandra and XMM-Newton spectrum of the SNR is best described by a two-component thermal model with the hard component characterized by a low ionization timescale, suggesting that the hot plasma has not yet reached ionization equilibrium. The soft component is characterized by enhanced metal abundances from Mg, Si, and S, suggesting the presence of metal-rich supernova ejecta. We discuss the explosion properties of the supernova and infer the mass of its progenitor star. Such studies shed light on our understanding of SNRs associated with highly magnetized neutron stars.

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 score0.005

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Astronomical UnionSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207