MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008715267 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/729/2/131

<i>CHANDRA</i>AND<i>RXTE</i>OBSERVATIONS OF 1E 1547.0–5408: COMPARING THE 2008 AND 2009 OUTBURSTS

2011· article· en· W2008715267 on OpenAlexaff
C.‐Y. Ng, V. M. Kaspi, Rim Dib, S. A. Olausen, Paul Scholz, Tolga Güver, Feryal Özel, F. P. Gavriil, P. M. Woods

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetarPhysicsAstrophysicsPulsarContext (archaeology)ObservatoryAstronomyFlux (metallurgy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present results from Chandra X-ray Observatory and Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer ( RXTE ) observations of the magnetar 1E 1547.0−5408 (SGR J1550−5418) following the source's outbursts in 2008 October and 2009 January. During the time span of the Chandra observations, which covers days 4 through 23 and days 2 through 16 after the 2008 and 2009 events, respectively, the source spectral shape remained stable in the Chandra band, while the pulsar's spin-down rate in the same span in 2008 increased by a factor of 2.2 as measured by RXTE . This suggests decoupling between the source's spin-down and radiative changes, hence between the spin-down-inferred magnetic field strength and that inferred spectrally. The lack of spectral variation during flux decay is surprising for models of magnetar outbursts. We also found a strong anti-correlation between the phase-averaged flux and the pulsed fraction in the 2008 and 2009 Chandra data, but not in the pre-2008 measurements. We discuss these results in the context of the magnetar model.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.291
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

Citations48
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207