MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091071161 · doi:10.1086/507175

Diffuse, Nonthermal X‐Ray Emission from the Galactic Star Cluster Westerlund 1

2006· article· en· W2091071161 on OpenAlexaff
M. P. Muno, Casey Law, J. S. Clark, S. M. Dougherty, Richard de Grijs, Simon Portegies Zwart, F. Yusef‐Zadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsSupernovaLuminosityStarsFlux (metallurgy)ElectronCluster (spacecraft)Emission spectrumGalaxyAstronomySpectral lineNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the diffuse X-ray emission identified in Chandra observations of the young, massive Galactic star cluster Westerlund 1. After removing pointlike X-ray sources down to a completeness limit of ≈2 × 10 31 ergs s -1 , we identify (3 ± 1) × 10 34 ergs s -1 (2-8 keV) of diffuse emission. The spatial distribution of the emission can be described as a slightly elliptical Lorentzian core with a half-width at half-maximum along the major axis of 25'' ± 1'', similar to the distribution of point sources in the cluster, plus a 5' halo of extended emission. The spectrum of the diffuse emission is dominated by a hard continuum component that can be described as a kT ≳ 3 keV thermal plasma that has a low iron abundance (≲0.3 solar) or as nonthermal emission that could be stellar light that is inverse Compton scattered by MeV electrons. Only 5% of the flux is produced by a kT ≈ 0.7 keV plasma. The low luminosity of the thermal emission and the lack of a 6.7 keV iron line suggest that ≲40,000 unresolved stars with masses between 0.3 and 2 M ☉ are present in the cluster, fewer than previously estimated. Moreover, the flux in the diffuse emission is a factor of several lower than would be expected from a supersonically expanding cluster wind, and there is no evidence for thermal remnants produced by supernovae. Less than 10 -5 of the mechanical luminosity of the cluster is dissipated as 2-8 keV X-rays, leaving a large amount of energy that either is radiated at other wavelengths, is dissipated beyond the bounds of our image, or escapes into the intergalactic medium.

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)0.000
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations92
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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