MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091540744 · doi:10.1086/422905

Mass‐Radius Constraints from a Pulse Shape Model for Hercules X‐1

2004· article· en· W2091540744 on OpenAlexaff
D. A. Leahy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsNeutron starRADIUSEmissivityPulse (music)Accretion (finance)GeometryAstrophysicsComputational physicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An accretion column model is applied to reproduce the pulse shape of Her X-1. The motivation for the model is the observed 35 day sequence of pulse shape changes, which imply a pencil beam from the near pole and a fan beam from the far pole. The pulse shape depends on the beam pattern, which is calculated for an emitting surface in the shape of a filled cone. The calculation has a parameterized emissivity function and includes gravitational light-bending and shadowing effects. Least-squares fitting of the model to the observed pulse profile yields best-fit parameters and statistical uncertainties for the viewing geometry, the geometry of the accretion column, and the mass-to-radius ratio of the neutron star. The derived mass-to-radius ratio is 0.121-0.128 M ☉ km -1 (3 σ statistical range). Combined with the mass determined from analysis of the orbit of Her X-1, several recent equations of state for dense matter are excluded for the neutron star in Her X-1.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations41
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207