MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039233374 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/693/2/1621

LONG-TERM X-RAY MONITORING OF THE TeV BINARY LS I +61 303 WITH THE<i>ROSSI X-RAY TIMING EXPLORER</i>

2009· article· en· W2039233374 on OpenAlexaff
A. W. Smith, P. Kaaret, J. Holder, A. Falcone, G. Maier, D. Pandel, M. C. Stroh

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsFlux (metallurgy)Orbital periodBinary numberPhotonX-rayWavelengthModulation (music)AstronomyOpticsStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on the results of a long term X-ray monitoring campaign of the galactic binary LS I +61 303 performed by the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer. This dataset consists of 1 ks pointings taken every other day between 2007 August 28 until 2008 February 2. The observations covered six full cycles of the 26.496 day binary period and constitute the largest continuous X-ray monitoring dataset on LS I +61 303 to date with this sensitivity. There is no statistically strong detection of modulation of flux or photon index with orbital phase; however, we do find a strong correlation between flux and photon index, with the spectrum becoming harder at higher fluxes. The dataset contains three large flaring episodes, the largest of these reaching a flux level of 7.2 (+0.1,-0.2)*10^-11 erg cm^-2 s^-1 in the 3-10 keV band, which is a factor of three times larger than flux levels typically seen in the system. Analysis of these flares shows the X-ray emission from LS I +61 303 changing by up to a factor of six over timescales of several hundred seconds as well as doubling times as fast as 2 seconds. This is the fastest variability ever observed from LS I +61 303 at this wavelength and places constraints on the size of the X-ray emitting region.

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 score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.972

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations48
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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