MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983335549 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/691/2/1235

CONSTRAINTS ON THE PROPERTIES OF THE NEUTRON STAR XTE J1814–338 FROM PULSE-SHAPE MODELS

2009· article· en· W1983335549 on OpenAlexaff
D. A. Leahy, Sharon M. Morsink, Yi-Ying Chung, Yi Chou

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsNeutron starAstrophysicsBlack-body radiationRADIUSPulsarAccretion (finance)Equation of stateIsotropyStar (game theory)Light curveRadiationNuclear physicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accretion-powered (non–X-ray burst) pulsations of XTE J1814−338 are modeled to determine neutron star parameters and their uncertainties. The model is a rotating circular hot spot and includes: (1) an isotropic blackbody spectral component; (2) an anisotropic Comptonized spectral component; (3) relativistic time delays and light bending; and (4) the oblate shape of the star due to rotation. This model is the simplest possible model that is consistent with the data. The resulting best-fit parameters of the model favor stiff equations of state (EOS), as can be seen from the 3σ allowed regions in the mass–radius diagram. We analyzed all data combined from a 23 day period of the 2003 outburst, and separately analyzed data from two days of the outburst. The allowed mass–radius regions for both cases only allow EOS that are stiffer than the EOS of Akmal and colleagues, consistent with the large mass that has been inferred for the pulsar NGC 6440B. The stiff EOS inferred by this analysis is not compatible with the soft EOS inferred from a similar analysis of SAX J1808.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 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

Citations52
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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