MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971932552 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4266

No Sign of G2's Encounter Affecting Sgr A*'s X-Ray Flaring Rate from Chandra Observations

2019· article· en· W2971932552 on OpenAlexafffund
Élie Bouffard, Daryl Haggard, Michael A. Nowak, Joey Neilsen, Sera Markoff, Frederick K. Baganoff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesMcGill Space InstituteNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekMcGill UniversityCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsSign (mathematics)AstronomyX-rayNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An unusual object, G2, had its pericenter passage around Sgr A*, the 4 × 106 M ⊙ supermassive black hole in the Galactic Center, in Summer 2014. Several research teams have reported evidence that, following G2's pericenter encounter, the rate of Sgr A*'s bright X-ray flares increased significantly. Our analysis carefully treats varying flux contamination from a nearby magnetic neutron star and is free from complications induced by using data from multiple X-ray observatories with different spatial resolutions. We test the scenario of an increased bright X-ray flaring rate using a massive data set from the Chandra X-ray Observatory, the only X-ray instrument that can spatially distinguish between Sgr A* and the nearby Galactic Center magnetar throughout the full extended period encompassing G2's encounter with Sgr A*. We use X-ray data from the 3 Ms observations of the Chandra X-ray Visionary Program (XVP) in 2012, as well as an additional 1.5 Ms of observations up to 2018. We use detected flares to make distributions of flare properties. Using simulations of X-ray flares accounting for important factors such as the different Chandra instrument modes, we test the null hypothesis on Sgr A*'s bright (or any flare category) X-ray flaring rate around different potential change points. In contrast to previous studies, our results are consistent with the null hypothesis; the same model parameters produce distributions consistent with the observed ones around any plausible change point.

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)0.003
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207