MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020888000 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/728/2/95

EVIDENCE FOR A MASSIVE NEUTRON STAR FROM A RADIAL-VELOCITY STUDY OF THE COMPANION TO THE BLACK-WIDOW PULSAR PSR B1957+20

2011· article· en· W2020888000 on OpenAlexaff
M. H. van Kerkwijk, R. P. Breton, S. R. Kulkarni

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPulsarNeutron starAstrophysicsAmplitudeMillisecond pulsarRadial velocityProper motionAstronomyX-ray pulsarMass ratioStar (game theory)Stars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The most massive neutron stars constrain the behavior of ultra-dense matter, with larger masses possible only for increasingly stiff equations of state. Here, we present evidence that the black-widow pulsar, PSR B1957+20, has a high mass. We took spectra of its strongly irradiated companion and found an observed radial-velocity amplitude of <i>K</i><sub>obs</sub> = 324 ± 3 km s<sup>-1</sup>. Correcting this for the fact that, due to the irradiation, the center of light lies inward relative to the center of mass, we infer a true radial-velocity amplitude of <i>K</i><sub>2</sub> = 353 ± 4 km s<sup>-1</sup> and a mass ratio <i>q</i> = M<sub>PSR</sub>/M<sub>2</sub> = 69.2 ± 0.8. Combined with the inclination i = 65° ± 2° inferred from models of the light curve, our best-fit pulsar mass is M<sub>PSR</sub> = 2.40 ± 0.12 M<sub>☉</sub>. We discuss possible systematic uncertainties, in particular, in the light curve modeling. Taking an upper limit of <i>i</i> < 85° based on the absence of radio eclipses at high frequency, combined with a conservative lower limit to the motion of the center of mass, <i>K</i><sub>2 </sub>> 343 km s<sup>-1</sup> (<i>q </i>> 67.3), we infer a lower limit to the pulsar mass of M<sub>PSR </sub>> 1.66 M<sub>☉</sub>

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations285
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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