MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Resonant cyclotron scattering and Comptonization in neutron star magnetospheres

2006· article· en· W2106089035 on OpenAlexaff
M. Lyutikov, F. P. Gavriil

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsNeutron starPulsarScatteringMagnetarCyclotron resonanceAstrophysicsCyclotronBlack-body radiationOpacityCompton scatteringComputational physicsPlasmaOpticsRadiationNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resonant cyclotron scattering of the surface radiation in the magnetospheres of neutron stars may considerably modify the emergent spectra and impede efforts to constrain neutron star properties. Resonant cyclotron scattering by a non-relativistic warm plasma in an inhomogeneous magnetic field has a number of unusual characteristics. (i) In the limit of high resonant optical depth, the cyclotron resonant layer is half opaque, in sharp contrast to the case of non-resonant scattering. (ii) The transmitted flux is on average Compton up-scattered by ∼1 + 2βT, where βT is the typical thermal velocity in units of the velocity of light; the reflected flux has on average the initial frequency. (iii) For both the transmitted and reflected fluxes, the dispersion of intensity decreases with increasing optical depth. (iv) The emergent spectrum is appreciably non-Planckian while narrow spectral features produced at the surface may be erased. We derive semi-analytically modification of the surface Planckian emission due to multiple scattering between the resonant layers and apply the model to the anomalous X-ray pulsar 1E 1048.1 − 5937. Our simple model fits just as well as the ‘canonical’ magnetar spectra model of a blackbody plus power law.

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 score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations160
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207