MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988001480 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/761/1/66

POST-OUTBURST X-RAY FLUX AND TIMING EVOLUTION OF SWIFT J1822.3–1606

2012· article· en· W1988001480 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Scholz, C.‐Y. Ng, Margaret A. Livingstone, V. M. Kaspi, A. Cumming, R. F. Archibald

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetarSwiftAstrophysicsPhysicsFlux (metallurgy)Light curveStatic timing analysisTelescopeNoise (video)Exponential decayPulsarNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Swift J1822.3-1606 was discovered on 2011 July 14 by the Swift Burst Alert Telescope following the detection of several bursts. The source was found to have a period of 8.4377 s and was identified as a magnetar. Here we present a phase-connected timing analysis and the evolution of the flux and spectral properties using Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer, Swift, and Chandra observations. We measure a spin frequency of 0.1185154343(8) s -1 and a frequency derivative of -4.3 ± 0.3 × 10 -15 at MJD 55761.0, in a timing analysis that includes significant non-zero second and third frequency derivatives that we attribute to timing noise. This corresponds to an estimated spin-down inferred dipole magnetic field of B 5 × 10 13 G, consistent with previous estimates though still possibly affected by unmodeled noise. We find that the post-outburst 1-10 keV flux evolution can be characterized by a double-exponential decay with decay timescales of 15.5 ± 0.5 and 177 ± 14 days. We also fit the light curve with a crustal cooling model, which suggests that the cooling results from heat injection into the outer crust. We find that the hardness-flux correlation observed in magnetar outbursts also characterizes the outburst of Swift J1822.3-1606. We compare the properties of Swift J1822.3-1606 with those of other magnetars and their outbursts. © 2012. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved..

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.468

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 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

Citations76
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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