MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136440129 · doi:10.1002/andp.200510165

Strong-field tests of gravity with the double pulsar

2005· article· en· W2136440129 on OpenAlexaff
M. Krämer, I. H. Stairs, R. N. Manchester, M. A. McLaughlin, A. G. Lyne, R. D. Ferdman, M. Burgay, D. R. Lorimer, Andrea Possenti, N. D’Amico, J. M. Sarkissian, B. C. Joshi, P. C. C. Freire, F. Camilo

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnalen der Physik · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationField (mathematics)PhysicsPulsarTheoretical physicsInformation retrievalComputer scienceAstrophysicsLibrary scienceMathematicsPure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This first-ever double-pulsar system was discovered in 2003, consisting of two visible pulsars which orbit the common centre of mass in a slightly eccentric orbit in only 2.4 hours. One of the pulsars appears to be old and recycled with a spin period of only 22 ms. Its companion is younger and rotating slower with a period of 2.8 s, confirming the long-proposed recycling theory for millisecond pulsars. The system provides an exciting opportunity to study the workings of pulsar magnetospheres and represents a truly unique laboratory for relativistic gravitational physics. Both aspects are greatly facilitated by the very fortunate fact that the orbit is seen nearly perfectly edge on. This alignment allows the detection of the Shapiro delay in the pulse arrival times of the 22-ms pulsar when its pulses propagate through the curved space-time near the slowly rotating pulsar. In addition to updating on the continuing observations, this contribution introduces a new timing model that represents a variation of Damour-Deruelle (1986) for highly inclined orbits. (c) 2006 WILEY-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim.

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 score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score0.301

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.318 · 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

Citations20
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnalen der PhysikSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207