MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951512414 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.0802.1242

Variability of the High-Magnetic Field X-ray Pulsar PSR J1846-0258 Associated with the Supernova Remnant Kes 75 as Revealed by the Chandra X-ray Observatory

2008· preprint· en· W2951512414 on OpenAlexaff
Harsha Sanjeev Kumar, Samar Safí-Harb

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2008
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulsarPhysicsMagnetarPulsar wind nebulaAstrophysicsSupernova remnantX-ray pulsarLuminosityAstronomyPulsar planetObservatorySupernovaCrab PulsarCrab NebulaMillisecond pulsarBinary pulsarGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present results from the archival Chandra observations of the 0.3 s X-ray pulsar PSR J1846-0258 associated with the supernova remnant (SNR) Kes 75. The pulsar has the highest spin-down luminosity (Edot = 8.3e36 erg/s) among all the high magnetic field pulsars (HBPs) and has been classified as a Crab-like pulsar despite its magnetic field (5e13 G) being above the quantum critical field. It is the only HBP described by a non-thermal Crab-like spectrum, powering a bright pulsar wind nebula (PWN). Our spectroscopic study shows evidence of spectral softening (photon index = 1.32 to 1.97) and temporal brightening (unabsorbed flux = 4.3e-12 to 2.7e-11 erg/cm^2/s) of the pulsar by ~6 times from 2000 to 2006. The 0.5-10 keV luminosity of the pulsar at the revised distance of 6 kpc has also increased from 1.85e34 to 1.16e35 erg/s, and the X-ray efficiency increased from 0.2% to 1.4%. The observed X-ray brightening and softening of the pulsar suggests for the first time that this HBP is revealing itself as a magnetar.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207