MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2007433213 · doi:10.1086/519482

<i>Spitzer</i>Mid‐Infrared Upper Limits on Anomalous X‐Ray Pulsars 1E 1048.1−5937, 1RXS J170849.0−400910, and XTE J1810−197

2007· article· en· W2007433213 on OpenAlexaff
Zhongxiang Wang, V. M. Kaspi, S. J. U. Higdon

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulsarPhysicsInfraredAstrophysicsSpitzer Space TelescopeMagnetosphereFlux (metallurgy)AstronomyTelescopeMagnetic fieldMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on mid-infrared imaging observations of the anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs) 1E 1048.1-5937, 1RXS J170849.0-400910, and XTE J1810-197. The observations were carried out at 4.5 and 8.0 μm with the Infrared Array Camera and at 24 μm with the Multiband Imaging Photometer on the Spitzer Space Telescope . No mid-infrared counterparts were detected. As infrared emission from AXPs may be related to their X-ray emission either via the magnetosphere or via a dust disk, we compare the derived upper limits on the infrared/X-ray flux ratios of the AXPs to the same ratio for 4U 0142+61, an AXP previously detected in the mid-infrared range. The upper limits are above the flux ratio for 4U 0142+61, indicating that if AXPs have similar infrared/X-ray flux ratios, our observations were not sufficiently deep to detect our AXP targets. For XTE J1810-197, the upper limits set a constraint on its rising radio energy spectrum, suggesting a spectral break between 4.2 × 10 10 and 6 × 10 13 Hz.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations16
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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