MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

PSR J1740--3052: a pulsar with a massive companion

2001· article· en· W2159722150 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulsarMillisecond pulsarBinary pulsarPulsar planetObservatoryX-ray pulsarOrbit (dynamics)TelescopeBinary star

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on the discovery of a binary pulsar, PSR J1740-3052, during the Parkes multibeam survey. Timing observations of the 570-ms pulsar at Jodrell Bank and Parkes show that it is young, with a characteristic age of 350 kyr, and is in a 231-d, highly eccentric orbit with a companion whose mass exceeds 11M⊙. An accurate position for the pulsar was obtained using the Australia Telescope Compact Array. Near-infrared 2.2-μm observations made with the telescopes at the Siding Spring observatory reveal a late-type star coincident with the pulsar position. However, we do not believe that this star is the companion of the pulsar, because a typical star of this spectral type and required mass would extend beyond the orbit of the pulsar. Furthermore, the measured advance of periastron of the pulsar suggests a more compact companion, for example, a main-sequence star with radius only a few times that of the Sun. Such a companion is also more consistent with the small dispersion measure variations seen near periastron. Although we cannot conclusively rule out a black hole companion, we believe that the companion is probably an early B star, making the system similar to the binary PSR J0045-7319.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations52
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207