MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2806711606 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aaee73

The 2016 Outburst of PSR J1119-6127: Cooling and a Spin-down-dominated Glitch

2018· article· en· W2806711606 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsMcGill UniversityCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlitchPulsarMagnetarBlack-body radiationMillisecond pulsarRADIUSFlux (metallurgy)Neutron star

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We report on the aftermath of a magnetar outburst from the young, high magnetic field radio pulsar PSR J1119−6127 that occurred on 2016 July 27. We present the results of a monitoring campaign using the Neil Gehrels Swift X-ray Telescope, NuSTAR, and XMM-Newton. After reaching a peak absorbed 0.5–10 keV flux of erg cm−2 s−1 on 2016 July 27, the pulsar’s X-ray flux declined by factor of ∼50 to erg cm−2 s−1 on 2016 December 12. The X-ray spectra are well described by a blackbody plus a hard power-law tail. During this time, the blackbody radius decreases monotonically by a factor of ∼4 over a span of nearly 200 days. We also report a highly pulsed hard X-ray emission component, which fades on a similar timescale to the soft X-ray flux, as predicted by models of relaxation of magnetospheric current twists. The previously reported spin-up glitch that accompanied this outburst was followed by a period of enhanced and erratic torque, leading to a net spin down of ∼3.5 × 10−4 Hz, a factor of ∼24 over-recovery. We suggest that this and other radiatively loud magnetar-type glitch recoveries are dominated by magnetospheric processes, in contrast to conventional radio pulsar glitch recoveries which are dominated by internal physics.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→