MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755032697 · doi:10.1093/mnras/sty215

Constraining the mass and radius of neutron stars in globular clusters

2018· article· en· W2755032697 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew W. Steiner, C. O. Heinke, Slavko Bogdanov, C K Li, Wynn C. G. Ho, Arash Bahramian, Songbai Han

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersOak Ridge National LaboratoryNuclear PhysicsScience and Technology Facilities CouncilNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsGlobular clusterNeutron starAstrophysicsAstronomyRADIUSStarsBlue straggler

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we analyse observations of eight quiescent low-mass X-ray binaries in globular clusters and combine them to determine the neutron star mass–radius curve and the equation of state of dense matter. We determine the effect that several uncertainties may have on our results, including uncertainties in the distance, the atmosphere composition, the neutron star maximum mass, the neutron star mass distribution, the possible presence of a hotspot on the neutron star surface, and the prior choice for the equation of state of dense matter. The distance uncertainty is implemented in a new Gaussian blurring method that can be directly applied to the probability distribution over mass and radius. We find that the radius of a 1.4 solar mass neutron star is most likely from 10 to 14 km and that tighter constraints are only possible with stronger assumptions about the nature of the neutron stars, the systematics of the observations, or the nature of dense matter. Finally, strong phase transitions in the equation of state are preferred, and in this case, the radius is likely smaller than 12 km. However, radii larger than 12 km are preferred if the neutron stars have uneven temperature distributions.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.122
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations236
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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