MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1987359812 · doi:10.1086/422751

Anomalous X-Ray Pulsar 1E 1048.1-5937: Pulsed Flux Flares and Large Torque Variations

2004· article· en· W1987359812 on OpenAlexaff
F. P. Gavriil, V. M. Kaspi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulsarPhysicsAstrophysicsFlareFlux (metallurgy)MagnetarAstronomyNeutron starX-ray pulsar

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on continued monitoring of the anomalous X-ray pulsar (AXP) 1E 1048.1-5937 using the Rossi X-R ay Timing Explorer . We confirm that this pulsar has exhibited significant pulsed flux variability. The principal features of this variability are two pulsed X-ray flares. Both flares lasted several months and had well-resolved few-week-long rises. The long rise times of the flares are a phenomenon not previously reported for this class of object. The epochs of the flare peaks were MJD 52,218.8±4.5 and 52,444.4±7.0. Both flares had shorter rise than fall times. The flares had peak fluxes of 2.21 ± 0.16 and 3.00 ± 0.13 times the quiescent value. We estimate a total 2-10 keV energy release of ~2.7 × 10 40 and ~2.8 × 10 41 ergs for the flares, assuming a distance of 5 kpc. We also report large (factor of ~12) changes to the pulsar's spin-down rate on timescales of weeks to months, shorter than has been reported previously. We find marginal evidence for correlation between the flux and spin-down rate variability, with probability of nonrandom correlation 6%. We discuss the implications of our findings for AXP models.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Citations85
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→