MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956497631 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab2bef

Mass Measurements for Two Binary Pulsars Discovered in the PALFA Survey

2019· article· en· W2956497631 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMillisecond pulsarPulsarBinary pulsarBinary numberProper motionPulsar planetBinary starMillisecond

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, we present the results of timing observations of PSRs J1949+3106 and J1950+2414, two binary millisecond pulsars (MSPs) discovered in data from the Arecibo ALFA pulsar survey (PALFA). The timing parameters include precise measurements of the proper motions of both pulsars, which show that PSR J1949+3106 has a transversal motion very similar to that of an object in the local standard of rest. The timing also includes measurements of the Shapiro delay and the rate of advance of periastron for both systems. Assuming general relativity, these allow estimates of the masses of the components of the two systems; for PSR J1949+3106, the pulsar mass is and the companion mass for PSR J1950+2414 and (all values have 68.3% confidence limits). We use these masses and proper motions to investigate the evolutionary history of both systems: PSR J1949+3106 is likely the product of a low-kick supernova; PSR J1950+2414 is a member of a new class of eccentric MSP binaries with an unknown formation mechanism. We discuss the proposed hypotheses for the formations of these systems in light of our new mass measurements.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.355
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 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

Citations28
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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