MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2964052037

A 20 cm Search for Pulsars in Globular Clusters with Arecibo and the GBT

2004· article· en· W2964052037 on OpenAlexaff
D. C. Backer, D. R. Lorimer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobular clusterMillisecond pulsarEclipsePhysicsPulsarGreen Bank TelescopeAstronomyRadio telescopeAstrophysicsTelescopeBinary numberStarsMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. We are conducting deep searches for radio pulsations at L-band ( ∼ 20 cm) towards more than 30 globular clusters (GCs) using the 305 m Arecibo telescope in Puerto Rico and the 100 m Green Bank Telescope in West Virginia. With roughly three quarters of our search data analyzed, we have discovered 12 new millisecond pulsars (MSPs), 11 of which are in binary systems, and at least three of which eclipse. We have timing solutions for several of these systems. There are currently ∼76 MSPs known in 23 GCs. For the last two years we have been searching more than 30 GCs for MSPs with the Berkeley Caltech Pulsar Machine (BCPM) at the GBT and the Wideband Arecibo Pulsar Processor (WAPP) at Arecibo. The high time and frequency resolution of these data, along with newly developed search algorithms (Ransom, Eikenberry, & Middleditch 2002; Ransom, Cordes, & Eikenberry 2003), makes us significantly more sensitive than past surveys to sub-millisecond pulsations as well as pulsars in ultra-compact binary systems. So far we have discovered 12 new MSPs in 6

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→