MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High-speed, multicolour optical photometry of the anomalous X-ray pulsar 4U 0142+61 with ULTRACAM

2005· article· en· W1996716569 on OpenAlexaff
V. S. Dhillon, T. R. Marsh, F. Hulleman, M. H. van Kerkwijk, A. Shearer, S. P. Littlefair, F. P. Gavriil, V. M. Kaspi

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersInstituto de Astrofísica de Canarias
KeywordsPhysicsPulsarPhotometry (optics)AstrophysicsAstronomyTelescopeMagnetarLight curveStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present high-speed, multicolour optical photometry of the anomalous X-ray pulsar 4U 0142+61, obtained with ULTRACAM on the 4.2-m William Herschel Telescope. We detect 4U 0142+61 at magnitudes of i′ = 23.7 ± 0.1, g′ = 27.2 ± 0.2 and u′ > 25.8, consistent with the magnitudes found recently by Hulleman et al. and hence confirming their discovery of both a spectral break in the optical and a lack of long-term optical variability. We also confirm the earlier discovery of Kern & Martin that 4U 0142+61 shows optical pulsations with an identical period (∼8.7 s) to the X-ray pulsations. The rms pulsed fraction in our data is 29 ± 8 per cent, 5–7 times greater than the 0.2–8 keV X-ray rms pulsed fraction. The optical and X-ray pulse profiles show similar morphologies and appear to be approximately in phase with each other, the former lagging the latter by only 0.04 ± 0.02 cycles. In conjunction with the constraints imposed by X-ray observations, the results presented here favour a magnetar interpretation for the anomalous X-ray pulsars.

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.247
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations48
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207