MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2765458810 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa96fd

The Sleeping Monster: NuSTAR Observations of SGR 1806–20, 11 Years After the Giant Flare

2017· article· en· W2765458810 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlareFlux (metallurgy)BurstingSpectral lineTelescopeNoise (video)Magnetic dipoleDipoleLight curve

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We report the analysis of five Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) observations of SGR 1806−20 spread over a year from 2015 April to 2016 April, more than 11 years following its giant flare (GF) of 2004. The source spin frequency during the NuSTAR observations follows a linear trend with a frequency derivative Hz s−1, implying a surface dipole equatorial magnetic field G. Thus, SGR 1806−20 has finally returned to its historical minimum torque level measured between 1993 and 1998. The source showed strong timing noise for at least 12 years starting in 2000, with increasing one order of magnitude between 2005 and 2011, following its 2004 major bursting episode and GF. SGR 1806−20 has not shown strong transient activity since 2009, and we do not find short bursts in the NuSTAR data. The pulse profile is complex with a pulsed fraction of with no indication of energy dependence. The NuSTAR spectra are well fit with an absorbed blackbody, , plus a power law, . We find no evidence for variability among the five observations, indicating that SGR 1806−20 has reached a persistent and potentially its quiescent X-ray flux level after its 2004 major bursting episode. Extrapolating the NuSTAR model to lower energies, we find that the 0.5–10 keV flux decay follows an exponential form with a characteristic timescale days. Interestingly, the NuSTAR flux in this energy range is a factor of ∼2 weaker than the long-term average measured between 1993 and 2003, a behavior also exhibited in SGR 1900+14. We discuss our findings in the context of 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.287 · 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

Citations39
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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