MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080029031 · doi:10.1086/318891

Upper Limits on Periodic, Pulsed Radio Emission from the X-Ray Point Source in Cassiopeia A

2001· article· en· W2080029031 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCassiopeia APulsarSupernova remnantPoint sourceLuminosityNeutron starFlux (metallurgy)Crab PulsarAngular diameter

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Chandra X-Ray Observatory recently discovered an X-ray point source near the center of Cassiopeia A, the youngest known Galactic supernova remnant. We have conducted a sensitive search for radio pulsations from this source with the Very Large Array, taking advantage of the high angular resolution of the array to resolve out the emission from the remnant itself. No convincing signatures of a dispersed, periodic source or of isolated dispersed pulses were found, whether for an isolated or a binary source. We derive upper limits of 30 and 1.3 mJy at 327 and 1435 MHz for its phase-averaged pulsed flux density. The corresponding luminosity limits are lower than those for any known radio pulsar with an age less than 10 4 yr. Our search sensitivities to single pulses were 25 and 1.0 Jy at 327 and 1435 MHz. For comparison, the Crab pulsar emits roughly 80 pulses per minute with flux densities greater than 100 Jy at 327 MHz and eight pulses per minute with flux densities greater than 50 Jy at 1435 MHz. These limits suggest that Cas A belongs to the growing population of young neutron stars that are radio-quiet.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations20
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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