MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979896296 · doi:10.1086/523794

Limits on Mass and Radius for the Millisecond‐Period X‐Ray Pulsar SAX J1808.4−3658

2008· article· en· W1979896296 on OpenAlexaff
D. A. Leahy, Sharon M. Morsink, Coire Cadeau

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutron starPhysicsMillisecond pulsarRADIUSAstrophysicsRotation periodLight curveMillisecondAstronomyStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SAX J1808.4–3658 has a 2.5 ms neutron star rotation period and exhibits X-ray pulsations due to its rotating hot spot. Here we present an analysis of the pulse shapes of SAX J1808.4–3658 during its 1998 outburst. The modeling of the pulse shape includes several effects, including gravitational light bending, Doppler effects, and two spectral components with different emissivity. In addition, we include the new effects of light travel time delays and the neutron star's oblate shape. We also consider two different data sets, with different selections in time period (1 vs. 19 days of data combined) and different energy binning and time resolution. We find that including time delays and oblateness results in a stronger restriction on allowed masses and radii. A second result is that the choice of data selection strongly affects the allowed masses and radii. Overall, the derived constraints on mass and radius favor compact stars and a soft equation of state.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations66
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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