X‐Ray Observations of the Supernova Remnant G21.5−0.9
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the analysis of archival X-ray observations of the supernova remnant (SNR) G21.5-0.9. Based on its morphology and spectral properties, G21.5-0.9 has been classified as a Crab-like SNR. In their early analysis of the CHANDRA calibration data, Slane et al. (2000) discovered a low-surface-brightness, extended emission. They interpreted this component as the blast wave formed in the supernova (SN) explosion. In this paper, we present the CHANDRA analysis using a total exposure of ~150 ksec. We also include ROSAT and ASCA observations. Our analysis indicates that the extended emission is non-thermal -- a result in agreement with XMM observations. The entire remnant of radius ~ 2'.5 is best fitted with a power law model with a photon index steepening away from the center. The total unabsorbed flux in the 0.5-10 keV is 1.1E-10 erg/cm2/s with an 85% contribution from the 40" radius inner core. Timing analysis of the High-Resolution Camera (HRC) data failed to detect any pulsations. We put a 16% upper limit on the pulsed fraction. We derive the physical parameters of the putative pulsar and compare them with those of other plerions (such as the Crab and 3C 58). G21.5-0.9 remains the only plerion whose size in X-rays is bigger than in the radio. Deep radio observations will address this puzzle.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".