MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059274199 · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/743/2/l38

THE SPIN-DOWN OF SWIFT J1822.3–1606: A NEW GALACTIC MAGNETAR

2011· article· en· W2059274199 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetarSwiftExponential decayDipoleFlux (metallurgy)GalaxyMagnetic fieldExponential function

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On 2011 July 14, a new magnetar candidate, Swift J1822.3−1606, was identified via a rate trigger on the Swift /Burst Alert Telescope. Here we present an initial analysis of the X-ray properties of the source, using data from the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer , Swift , and the Chandra X-ray Observatory , spanning 2011 July 16–October 8. We measure a precise spin period of P = 8.43771968(6) s and a spin-down rate of , at MJD 55761.0, corresponding to an inferred surface dipole magnetic field of B = 4.7(2) × 10 13 G, the second lowest thus far measured for a magnetar, though similar to those of 1E 2259+586 and several high-magnetic field radio pulsars. We show that the flux decay in the 1–10 keV band is best fit by a double exponential with timescales of 9 ± 1 and 55 ± 9 days. The pulsed count rate decay in the 2–10 keV band, by contrast, is better fit by a single exponential decay with timescale 15.9 ± 0.2 days. After increasing from ∼35% for ∼20 days after the onset of the outburst, the pulsed fraction in the 2–10 keV band remained constant at ∼45%. We argue that these properties confirm this source to be a new member of the class of objects known as magnetars. We consider the distribution of magnetar periods and inferred dipole magnetic field strengths, showing that the former appears flat in the 2–12 s range, while the latter appears peaked in the 10 14 –10 15 G range.

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 score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.537

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations30
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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