MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094414339 · doi:10.1073/pnas.1000812107

Grand unification of neutron stars

2010· article· en· W2094414339 on OpenAlexafffund
V. M. Kaspi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMcGill UniversityFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationCanada Research ChairsCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsNeutron starUnificationPhysicsMedicineAstronomyComputer scienceProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The last decade has shown us that the observational properties of neutron stars are remarkably diverse. From magnetars to rotating radio transients, from radio pulsars to isolated neutron stars, from central compact objects to millisecond pulsars, observational manifestations of neutron stars are surprisingly varied, with most properties totally unpredicted. The challenge is to establish an overarching physical theory of neutron stars and their birth properties that can explain this great diversity. Here I survey the disparate neutron stars classes, describe their properties, and highlight results made possible by the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, in celebration of its 10th anniversary. Finally, I describe the current status of efforts at physical "grand unification" of this wealth of observational phenomena, and comment on possibilities for Chandra's next decade in this field.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.010
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.007
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations209
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207