MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Age constraints in the double pulsar system J0737-3039

2007· article· en· W2100797800 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPulsarBinary pulsarPulsar planetMillisecond pulsarX-ray pulsarNeutron starCoalescence (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the age constraints that can be placed on the double pulsar system using models for the spin-down of the first-born 22.7-ms Pulsar A and the 2.77-s Pulsar B with characteristic ages of 210 and 50 Myr, respectively. Standard models assuming dipolar spin-down of both pulsars suggest that the time since the formation of Pulsar B is ∼50 Myr, that is, close to Pulsar B's characteristic age. However, adopting models which account for the impact of Pulsar A's relativistic wind on Pulsar B's spin-down, we find that the formation of Pulsar B took place either 80 or 180 Myr ago, depending on the interaction mechanism. Formation 80 Myr ago, closer to Pulsar B's characteristic age, would result in the contribution from J0737−3039 to the inferred coalescence rates for double neutron star binaries increasing by 40 per cent. The 180 Myr age is closer to Pulsar A's characteristic age and would be consistent with the most recent estimates of the coalescence rate. The new age constraints do not significantly impact recent estimates of the kick velocity, tilt angle between pre- and post-supernova orbital planes or pre-supernova mass of Pulsar B's progenitor.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→