MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Neutron star atmosphere composition: the quiescent, low-mass X-ray binary in the globular cluster M28

2012· article· en· W1847413665 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGlobular clusterNeutron starRADIUSHeliumBinary numberAtmosphere (unit)X-ray binaryEquation of stateHydrogen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using deep Chandra observations of the globular cluster M28, we study the quiescent X-ray emission of a neutron star in a low-mass X-ray binary in order to constrain the chemical composition of the neutron star atmosphere and the equation of state of dense matter. We fit the spectrum with different neutron star atmosphere models composed of hydrogen, helium or carbon. The parameter values obtained with the carbon model are unphysical and such a model can be ruled out. Hydrogen and helium models give realistic parameter values for a neutron star, and the derived mass and radius are clearly distinct depending on the composition of the atmosphere. The hydrogen model gives masses/radii consistent with the canonical values of 1.4 M_Sun and 10 km, and would allow for the presence of exotic matter inside neutron stars. On the other hand, the helium model provides solutions with higher masses/radii, consistent with the stiffest equations of state. Measurements of neutron star masses/radii by spectral fitting should consider the possibility of heavier element atmospheres, which produce larger masses/radii for the same data, unless the composition of the accretor is known independently.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations50
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207