MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094238336 · doi:10.1086/507174

Extinction Columns and Intrinsic X‐Ray Spectra of the Anomalous X‐Ray Pulsars

2006· article· en· W2094238336 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpectral linePulsarExtinction (optical mineralogy)HaloRange (aeronautics)Absorption (acoustics)Optical depthScatteringInterstellar medium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The X-ray spectra of anomalous X-ray pulsars have long been fit by smooth, empirical models such as the sum of a blackbody plus a power law. These reproduce the ~0.5-10 keV range well, but fail at lower and higher energies, grossly overpredicting the optical and underpredicting the hard X-ray emission. A poorly constrained source of uncertainty in determining the true, intrinsic spectra, in particular at lower energies, is the amount of interstellar extinction. In previous studies, extinction column densities with small statistical errors were derived as part of the fits of the spectra to simple continuum models. Different choices of model, however, each produced statistically acceptable fits but a wide range of columns. Here we attempt to measure the interstellar extinction in a model-independent way, using individual absorption edges of the elements O, Fe, Ne, Mg, and Si in X-ray grating spectra taken with XMM-Newton . We find that our inferred equivalent hydrogen column density N H for 4U 0142+61 is a factor of 1.4 lower than the typically quoted value from blackbody plus power-law fits, and is now consistent with estimates based on the dust scattering halo and visual extinction. For three other sources, we find column densities consistent with earlier estimates. We use our measurements to recover the intrinsic spectra of the AXPs empirically, without making assumptions on what the intrinsic spectral shapes ought to be. We find that the power-law components that dominate at higher energies do not extend below the thermal peak.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations61
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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