MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2293492584 · doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/2/184

NEUTRON STAR MASS–RADIUS CONSTRAINTS OF THE QUIESCENT LOW-MASS X-RAY BINARIES X7 AND X5 IN THE GLOBULAR CLUSTER 47 TUC

2016· article· en· W2293492584 on OpenAlexaff
Slavko Bogdanov, C. O. Heinke, Feryal Özel, Tolga Güver

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsNeutron starRADIUSAstrophysicsGlobular clusterLow MassX-ray binaryBinary starStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We present Chandra /ACIS-S subarray observations of the quiescent neutron star (NS) low-mass X-ray binaries X7 and X5 in the globular cluster 47 Tuc. The large reduction in photon pile-up compared to previous deep exposures enables a substantial improvement in the spectroscopic determination of the NS radius and mass of these NSs. Modeling the thermal emission from the NS surface with a non-magnetized hydrogen atmosphere and accounting for numerous sources of uncertainties, we obtain for the NS in X7 a radius of km for an assumed stellar mass of M = 1.4 M ⊙ (68% confidence level). We argue, based on astrophysical grounds, that the presence of a He atmosphere is unlikely for this source. Due to the excision of data affected by eclipses and variable absorption, the quiescent low-mass X-ray binary X5 provides less stringent constraints, leading to a radius of km, assuming a hydrogen atmosphere and a mass of M = 1.4 M ⊙ . When combined with all existing spectroscopic radius measurements from other quiescent low-mass X-ray binaries and Type I X-ray bursts, these measurements strongly favor radii in the 9.9–11.2 km range for a ∼1.5 M ⊙ NS and point to a dense matter equation of state that is somewhat softer than the nucleonic ones that are consistent with laboratory experiments at low densities.

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 score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations105
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207