MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2003357980 · doi:10.1086/503546

Optical Detection of Two Intermediate-Mass Binary Pulsar Companions

2006· article· en· W2003357980 on OpenAlexaff
B. A. Jacoby, Deepto Chakrabarty, M. H. van Kerkwijk, S. R. Kulkarni, D. L. Kaplan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulsarWhite dwarfPhysicsNeutron starAstrophysicsMillisecond pulsarChandrasekhar limitBinary pulsarAstronomyBinary numberStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the detection of probable optical counterparts for two intermediate-mass binary pulsar (IMBP) systems, PSR J1528-3146 and PSR J1757-5322. Recent radio pulsar surveys have uncovered a handful of these systems with putative massive white dwarf companions, thought to have an evolutionary history different from that of the more numerous class of low-mass binary pulsars with He white dwarf companions. The study of IMBP companions via optical observations offers us several new diagnostics: the evolution of main-sequence stars near the white dwarf-neutron star boundary, the physics of white dwarfs close to the Chandrasekhar limit, and insights into the recycling process by which old pulsars are spun up to high rotation frequencies. We were unsuccessful in our attempt to detect optical counterparts of PSR J1141-6545, PSR J1157-5112, PSR J1435-6100, and PSR J1454-5846.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→