MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2254905689 · doi:10.1103/revmodphys.88.021001

<i>Colloquium</i>: Measuring the neutron star equation of state using x-ray timing

2016· article· en· W2254905689 on OpenAlexafffund
Anna L. Watts, Nils Andersson, Deepto Chakrabarty, M. Feroci, K. Hebeler, G. L. Israel, Frederick K. Lamb, M. Coleman Miller, Sharon M. Morsink, Feryal Özel, Alessandro Patruno, Juri Poutanen, Dimitrios Psaltis, A. Schwenk, Andrew W. Steiner, L. Stella, Laura Tolós, M. van der Klis

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews of Modern Physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNuclear PhysicsAgenzia Spaziale ItalianaNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekFP7 People: Marie-Curie ActionsEuropean Research CouncilMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadAcademy of FinlandDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsNeutron starMoment of inertiaAstrophysicsEquation of statePulsarMagnetarRADIUSCompact starClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How are two essential quantities of neutron stars (the mass and radius), which provide constraints for the equation of state in their interiors where supranuclear densities are experienced, precisely determined? This Colloquium discusses major techniques for how this information can be inferred from x-ray observations of neutron stars that accrete matter from a binary companion, or of isolated neutron stars that experience seismic vibrations, taking into account rotation, relativistic effects, and magnetic fields.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations402
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews of Modern PhysicsSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207