MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2599338825 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa6f03

Descattering of Giant Pulses in PSR B1957+20

2017· article· en· W2599338825 on OpenAlexaff
Robert Main, M. H. van Kerkwijk, Ue‐Li Pen, Nikhil Mahajan, K. Vanderlinde

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsPerimeter InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAstrophysicsAstronomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The interstellar medium scatters radio waves, which causes pulsars to scintillate. For intrinsically short bursts of emission, the observed signal should be a direct measurement of the impulse response function. We show that this is indeed the case for giant pulses from PSR B1957+20 : from baseband observations at 327 MHz, we demonstrate that the observed voltages of a bright pulse allow one to coherently descatter nearby pulses. We find that while the scattering timescale is , the power in the descattered pulses is concentrated within a span almost two orders of magnitude shorter, of . This sets an upper limit to the intrinsic duration of the giant pulses. We verify that the response inferred from the giant pulses is consistent with the scintillation pattern obtained by folding the regular pulsed emission, and that it decorrelates on the same timescale, of . In principle, with large sets of giant pulses, it should be possible to constrain the structure of the scattering screen much more directly than with other current techniques, such as holography on the dynamic spectrum and cyclic spectroscopy.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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