MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026721335 · doi:10.1086/322515

<i>Chandra</i>X‐Ray Observations of G11.2−0.3: Implications for Pulsar Ages

2001· article· en· W2026721335 on OpenAlexaff
V. M. Kaspi, M. S. Roberts, Gautam Vasisht, E. V. Gotthelf, M. J. Pivovaroff, N. Kawai

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulsarPhysicsAstrophysicsPulsar wind nebulaMillisecond pulsarSupernova remnantAstronomyX-ray pulsarPulsar planetRADIUSNebulaBinary pulsarObservatorySupernovaStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present Chandra X-Ray Observatory imaging observations of the young Galactic supernova remnant G11.2-0.3. The image shows that the previously known young 65 ms X-ray pulsar is at position (J2000) R.A. 18 h 11 m 29 22, decl. -19°25'27 6, with 1 σ error radius of 0 6. This is within 8'' of the geometric center of the shell. This provides strong confirming evidence that the system is younger, by a factor of ~12, than the characteristic age of the pulsar. The age discrepancy suggests that pulsar characteristic ages can be poor age estimators for young pulsars. Assuming conventional spin-down with constant magnetic field and braking index, the most likely explanation for the age discrepancy in G11.2-0.3 is that the pulsar was born with a spin period of ~62 ms. The Chandra image also reveals, for the first time, the morphology of the pulsar wind nebula. The elongated hard X-ray structure can be interpreted as either a jet or a Crab-like torus seen edge-on. This adds to the growing list of highly aspherical pulsar wind nebulae and argues that such structures are common around young 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 communication0.0010.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations102
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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