MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065592837 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20054316

The ultra-cool white dwarf companion of PSR J0751+1807

2006· article· en· W2065592837 on OpenAlexafffund
C. Bassa, M. H. van Kerkwijk, S. R. Kulkarni

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean Southern ObservatoryNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationCalifornia Institute of TechnologyW. M. Keck FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsWhite dwarfPulsarMillisecond pulsarPhysicsAstrophysicsPulsar planetAstronomyNeutron starEnvelope (radar)Binary pulsarCommon envelopeAtmosphere (unit)Stars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present optical and near-infrared observations with Keck of the binary millisecond pulsar PSR J0751+1807. We detect a faint, red object – with ± 0.07, ± 0.3, and ± 0.10 – at the celestial position of the pulsar and argue that it is the white dwarf companion of the pulsar. The colours are the reddest among all known white dwarfs, and indicate a very low temperature, K. This implies that the white dwarf cannot have the relatively thick hydrogen envelope that is expected on evolutionary grounds. Our observations pose two puzzles. First, while the atmosphere was expected to be pure hydrogen, the colours are inconsistent with this composition. Second, given the low temperature, irradiation by the pulsar should be important, but we see no evidence for it. We discuss possible solutions to these puzzles.

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)0.000
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207