MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2996440992 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab0d21

The Green Bank North Celestial Cap Pulsar Survey. IV. Four New Timing Solutions

2019· article· en· W2996440992 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulsarMillisecond pulsarBinary pulsarPulsar planetX-ray pulsarGreen Bank TelescopeDispersion (optics)Compact star

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present timing solutions for four pulsars discovered in the Green Bank Northern Celestial Cap survey. All four pulsars are isolated with spin periods between 0.26 and 1.84 s. PSR J0038−2501 has a 0.26 s period and a period derivative of 7.6 × 10−19 s s−1, which is unusually low for isolated pulsars with similar periods. This low period derivative may be simply an extreme value for an isolated pulsar or it could indicate an unusual evolution path for PSR J0038−2501, such as a disrupted recycled pulsar from a binary system or an orphaned central compact object (CCO). Correcting the observed spin-down rate for the Shklovskii effect suggests that this pulsar may have an unusually low space velocity, which is consistent with expectations for DRPs. There is no X-ray emission detected from PSR J0038−2501 in an archival Swift observation, which suggests that it is not a young orphaned CCO. The high dispersion measure of PSR J1949+3426 suggests a distance of 12.3 kpc. This distance indicates that PSR J1949+3426 is among the most distant 7% of Galactic field pulsars, and is one of the most luminous pulsars.

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)0.003
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 score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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