MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011059721 · doi:10.1086/319120

Discovery of Five Binary Radio Pulsars

2001· article· en· W2011059721 on OpenAlexaff
F. Camilo, A. G. Lyne, R. N. Manchester, J. F. Bell, I. H. Stairs, N. D’Amico, V. M. Kaspi, Andrea Possenti, F. Crawford, N. P. F. McKay

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulsarPhysicsAstrophysicsGalactic planeBinary numberBinary pulsarWhite dwarfAstronomyOrbital elementsSpin (aerodynamics)Millisecond pulsarStarsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on five binary pulsars discovered in the Parkes multibeam Galactic plane survey. All of the pulsars are old, with characteristic ages (1-11) × 10 9 yr, and have relatively small inferred magnetic fields, (5-90) × 10 8 G. The orbital periods range from 1.3 to 15 days. As a group these objects differ from the usual low-mass binary pulsars (LMBPs): their spin periods of 9-88 ms are relatively long; their companion masses, 0.2-1.1 M ☉ , are, in at least some cases, suggestive of CO or more massive white dwarfs; and some of the orbital eccentricities, 10 -5 ≲ e ≲ 0.002, are unexpectedly large. We argue that these observed characteristics reflect binary evolution that is significantly different from that of LMBPs. We also note that intermediate-mass binary pulsars apparently have a smaller scale height than LMBPs.

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)0.002
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations85
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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