MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964642523 · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/756/2/l25

A PARALLAX DISTANCE AND MASS ESTIMATE FOR THE TRANSITIONAL MILLISECOND PULSAR SYSTEM J1023+0038

2012· article· en· W1964642523 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesKillam TrustsNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekNational Radio Astronomy ObservatoryNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMillisecond pulsarParallaxProper motionNeutron starMillisecondPulsarSolar SystemAstrometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recently discovered transitional millisecond pulsar system J1023+0038 exposes a crucial evolutionary phase of recycled neutron stars for multiwavelength study. The system, comprising the neutron star itself, its stellar companion, and the surrounding medium, is visible across the electromagnetic spectrum from the radio to X-ray/gamma-ray regimes and offers insight into the recycling phase of millisecond pulsar evolution. Here, we report on multiple-epoch astrometric observations with the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) which give a system parallax of 0.731 ± 0.022 milliarcseconds (mas) and a proper motion of 17.98 ± 0.05 mas yr–1. By combining our results with previous optical observations, we are able to use the parallax distance of 1368+42 – 39 pc to estimate the mass of the pulsar to be 1.71 ± 0.16 M ☉, and we are also able to measure the three-dimensional space velocity of the system to be 126 ± 5 km s–1. Despite the precise nature of the VLBA measurements, the remaining ~3% distance uncertainty dominates the 0.16 M ☉ error on our mass estimate.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations120
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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