MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2228329019 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stw014

On the diversity of compact objects within supernova remnants – I. A parametric model for magnetic field evolution

2016· article· en· W2228329019 on OpenAlexaff
Adam Rogers, Samar Safí-Harb

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsNeutron starAstrophysicsSupernovaMagnetic fieldMagnetarAccretion (finance)Magnetic dipoleDipoleField strengthAstronomyQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A wealth of X-ray and radio observations has revealed in the past decade a growing diversity of neutron stars (NSs) with properties spanning orders of magnitude in magnetic field strength and ages, and with emission processes explained by a range of mechanisms dictating their radiation properties. However, serious difficulties exist with the magneto-dipole model of isolated NS fields and their inferred ages, such as a large range of observed braking indices (n, with values often <3) and a mismatch between the NS and associated supernova remnant (SNR) ages. This problem arises primarily from the assumptions of a constant magnetic field with n = 3, and an initial spin period that is much smaller than the observed current period. It has been suggested that a solution to this problem involves magnetic field evolution, with some NSs having magnetic fields buried within the crust by accretion of fall-back supernova material following their birth. In this work, we explore a parametric phenomenological model for magnetic field growth that generalizes previous suggested field evolution functions, and apply it to a variety of NSs with both secure SNR associations and known ages. We explore the flexibility of the model by recovering the results of previous work on buried magnetic fields in young NSs. Our model fits suggest that apparently disparate classes of NSs may be related to one another through the time evolution of the magnetic field.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→