MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2527192255 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/835/1/21

HARMONIC SPACE ANALYSIS OF PULSAR TIMING ARRAY REDSHIFT MAPS

2017· article· en· W2527192255 on OpenAlexaff
Elinore Roebber, G. P. Holder

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPulsarCosmic microwave backgroundSpectral densityGravitational waveAstrophysicsQuadrupoleGravitational wave backgroundGravitational-wave observatoryRedshiftIsotropyAstronomyAnisotropyOpticsQuantum mechanicsGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In this paper, we propose a new framework for treating the angular information in the pulsar timing array (PTA) response to a gravitational wave (GW) background based on standard cosmic microwave background techniques. We calculate the angular power spectrum of the all-sky gravitational redshift pattern induced at the Earth for both a single bright source of gravitational radiation and a statistically isotropic, unpolarized Gaussian random GW background. The angular power spectrum is the harmonic transform of the Hellings & Downs curve. We use the power spectrum to examine the expected variance in the Hellings & Downs curve in both cases. Finally, we discuss the extent to which PTAs are sensitive to the angular power spectrum and find that the power spectrum sensitivity is dominated by the quadrupole anisotropy of the gravitational redshift map.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207