A Comprehensive Study of the X-ray Bursts from the Magnetar Candidate 1E 2259+586
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a statistical analysis of the X‐ray bursts observed from the 2002 June 18 outburst of the Anomalous X‐ray Pulsar (AXP) 1E 2259+586, observed with the Proportional Counter Array aboard the Rossi X‐ray Timing Explorer. We show that the properties of these bursts are similar to those of Soft Gamma‐Repeaters (SGRs). The similarities we find are: the burst durations follow a log‐normal distribution which peaks at 99 ms, the differential burst fluence distribution is well described by a power law of index −1.7, the burst fluences are positively correlated with the burst durations, the distribution of waiting times is well described by a log‐normal distribution of mean 47 s, and the bursts are generally asymmetric with faster rise than fall times. However, we find several quantitative differences between the AXP and SGR bursts. Specifically, there is a correlation of burst phase with pulsed intensity, the AXP bursts we observed exhibit a wider range of durations, the correlation between burst fluence and duration is flatter than for SGRs, the observed AXP bursts are on average less energetic than observed SGR bursts, and the more energetic AXP bursts have the hardest spectra — the opposite of what is seen for SGRs. We conclude that the bursts are sufficiently similar that AXPs and SGRs can be considered united as a source class yet there are some interesting differences that may help determine what physically differentiates the two closely related manifestations of neutron stars.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".