MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3101006404

Realistic Modeling of the Pulse Profile of PSR J0737–3039A

2016· article· en· W3101006404 on OpenAlexaff
Benetge B. P. Perera, C. Kim, M. A. McLaughlin, R. D. Ferdman, M. Krämer, I. H. Stairs, P. C. C. Freire, Andrea Possenti

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Research Repository @ WVU (West Virginia University) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPulsarNeutron starPhysicsAstrophysicsMagnetosphereMillisecond pulsarBinary pulsarX-ray pulsarPulse (music)DipoleGeometryAstronomyOpticsPlasmaNuclear physics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Double Pulsar, PSR J0737-3039A/B, is a unique system in which both neutron stars have been detected as radio pulsars. As shown in Ferdman et al., there is no evidence for pulse profile evolution of the A pulsar, and the geometry of the pulsar was fit well with a double-pole circular radio beam model. Assuming a more realistic polar cap model with a vacuum retarded dipole magnetosphere configuration including special relativistic effects, we create synthesized pulse profiles for A given the best-fit geometry from the simple circular beam model. By fitting synthesized pulse profiles to those observed from pulsar A, we constrain the geometry of the radio beam, namely the half-opening angle and the emission altitude, to be ~30° and ~10 neutron star radii, respectively. Combining the observational constraints of PSR J0737-3039A/B, we are able to construct the full three-dimensional orbital geometry of the Double Pulsar. The relative angle between the spin axes of the two pulsars (ΔS) is estimated to be ~(138° ± 5°) at the current epoch and will likely remain constant until tidal interactions become important in ~85 Myr, at merger.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score0.386

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Research Repository @ WVU (West Virginia University)Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207