MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996168102 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab5968

Constraining the Neutron Star Mass–Radius Relation and Dense Matter Equation of State with NICER. II. Emission from Hot Spots on a Rapidly Rotating Neutron Star

2019· article· en· W2996168102 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraNational Science FoundationGovernment of CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationMinistero dello Sviluppo EconomicoInstitut Périmètre de physique théoriqueInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
KeywordsNeutron starEquation of statePulsarStar (game theory)NeutronSchwarzschild radiusMillisecond pulsarGeneral relativity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We describe the model of surface emission from a rapidly rotating neutron star that is applied to Neutron Star Interior Composition Explorer X-ray data of millisecond pulsars in order to statistically constrain the neutron star mass–radius relation and dense matter equation of state. To ensure that the associated calculations are both accurate and precise, we conduct an extensive suite of verification tests between our numerical codes for both the Schwarzschild + Doppler and Oblate Schwarzschild approximations, and compare both approximations against exact numerical calculations. We find superb agreement between the code outputs, as well as in comparisons against a set of analytical and semi-analytical calculations, which, combined with their speed, demonstrates that the codes are well suited for large-scale statistical sampling applications. A set of verified, high-precision reference synthetic pulse profiles is provided to the community to facilitate testing of other independently developed codes.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations163
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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