MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121460726 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/739/2/94

THE 2009 OUTBURST OF MAGNETAR 1E 1547--5408: PERSISTENT RADIATIVE AND BURST PROPERTIES

2011· article· en· W2121460726 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Scholz, V. M. Kaspi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetarAstrophysicsPhysicsFlux (metallurgy)Context (archaeology)Radiative transferTelescopePulsarMaterials scienceGeologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The magnetar 1E 1547–5408 recently exhibited two periods of outburst, beginning on 2008 October 3 and 2009 January 22. Here we present an analysis of the persistent radiative evolution and a statistical study of the burst properties during the 2009 outburst using the Swift X-Ray Telescope. We find that the 1–10 keV flux increased by a factor of ∼500 and hardened significantly, peaking ∼6 hr after the onset of the outburst. The observed pulsed fraction exhibited an anti-correlation with phase-averaged flux. Properties of the several hundred X-ray bursts during the 2009 outburst were determined and compared to those from other magnetar outburst events. We find that the peaks of the bursts occur randomly in phase but that the folded counts that compose the bursts exhibit a pulse which is misaligned with the persistent pulse phase. We also report a correlation between burst hardness and flux. We compare the hardness–flux evolution of the persistent emission of both outbursts to those from other magnetars and find that although an overall trend does exist, the degree of hardening for a given increase in flux is not uniform from source to source. These results are discussed in the context of previous results and within the magnetar model.

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 score0.004

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations73
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207