MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999034362 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1449

Improved mass and radius constraints for quiescent neutron stars in ω Cen and NGC 6397

2014· article· en· W1999034362 on OpenAlexaff
C. O. Heinke, H. N. Cohn, P. M. Lugger, N. Webb, Wynn C. G. Ho, Jay Anderson, S. Campana, Slavko Bogdanov, Daryl Haggard, A. M. Cool, J. E. Grindlay

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGlobular clusterNeutron starAstronomyPhotometry (optics)RADIUSMillisecond pulsarStarsOmegaHubble space telescopeInterstellar mediumGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use Chandra and XMM–Newton observations of the globular clusters ω Cen and NGC 6397 to measure the spectrum of their quiescent neutron stars (NSs), and thus to constrain the allowed ranges of mass and radius for each. We also use Hubble Space Telescope photometry of NGC 6397 to identify a potential optical companion to the quiescent NS, and find evidence that the companion lacks hydrogen. We carefully consider a number of systematic problems, and show that the choices of atmospheric composition, interstellar medium abundances, and cluster distances can have important effects on the inferred NS mass and radius. We find that for typical NS masses, the radii of both NSs are consistent with the 10-13 km range favoured by recent nuclear physics experiments. This removes the evidence suggested by Guillot and collaborators for an unusually small NS radius, which relied upon the small inferred radius of the NGC 6397 NS.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations162
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207