MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106116309 · doi:10.25916/sut.26230298.v1

Glitches in southern pulsars

2024· article· en· W3106116309 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
KeywordsGlitchPulsarPhysicsAstrophysicsAmplitudePulse (music)AstronomyOpticsQuantum mechanicsVoltage

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Timing observations of 40 mostly young pulsars using the ATNF Parkes radio telescope between 1990 January and 1998 December are reported. In total, 20 previously unreported glitches and 10 other glitches were detected in 11 pulsars. These included 12 glitches in PSR J1341-6220, corresponding to a glitch rate of 1.5 glitches per year. We also detected the largest known glitch, in PSR J1614-5047, with Deltanugnu~6.5×10-6, where nu=1/P is the pulse frequency. Glitch parameters were determined both by extrapolating timing solutions to interglitch intervals and by phase-coherent timing fits across the glitch(es). These fits also give improved positions and dispersion measures for many of the pulsars. Analysis of glitch parameters, both from this work and from previously published results, shows that most glitches have a fractional amplitude Deltanugnu of between 10-8 and 10-6. There is no consistent relationship between glitch amplitude and the time since the previous glitch or the time to the following glitch, either for the ensemble or for individual pulsars. As previously recognized, the largest glitch activity is seen in pulsars with ages of order 104yr, but for about 30per cent of such pulsars, no glitches were detected in the 8-year data span. There is some evidence for a new type of timing irregularity in which there is a significant increase in pulse frequency over a few days, accompanied by a decrease in the magnitude of the slow-down rate. Fits of an exponential recovery to post-glitch data show that for most older pulsars, only a small fraction of the glitch decays. In some younger pulsars a large fraction of the glitch decays, but in others there is very little decay. Apart from the Crab pulsar, there is no clear dependence of recovery time-scale on pulsar age.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.823
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1810.008

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.317 · 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