MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4306246298 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac983d

The Radius of PSR J0740+6620 from NICER with NICER Background Estimates

2022· article· en· W4306246298 on OpenAlexaff
Tuomo Salmi, S. Vinciguerra, Devarshi Choudhury, Thomas E. Riley, Anna L. Watts, Ronald A. Remillard, Paul S. Ray, Slavko Bogdanov, Sébastien Guillot, Zaven Arzoumanian, Cecilia Chirenti, Alexander J. Dittmann, Keith C. Gendreau, Wynn C. G. Ho, M. Coleman Miller, Sharon M. Morsink, Zorawar Wadiasingh, M. T. Wolff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersLos Alamos National LaboratoryNational Nuclear Security AdministrationNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsMillisecond pulsarPulsarRADIUSNeutron star

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We report a revised analysis for the radius, mass, and hot surface regions of the massive millisecond pulsar PSR J0740+6620, studied previously with joint fits to NICER and XMM-Newton data by Riley et al. (2021) and Miller et al. (2021). We perform a similar Bayesian estimation for the pulse-profile model parameters, except that instead of fitting simultaneously the XMM-Newton data, we use the best available NICER background estimates to constrain the number of photons detected from the source. This approach eliminates any potential issues in the cross-calibration between these two instruments, providing thus an independent check of the robustness of the analysis. The obtained neutron star parameter constraints are compatible with the already published results, with a slight dependence on how conservative the imposed background limits are. A tighter lower limit causes the inferred radius to increase, and a tighter upper limit causes it to decrease. We also extend the study of the inferred emission geometry to examine the degree of deviation from antipodality of the hot regions. We show that there is a significant offset to an antipodal spot configuration, mainly due to the non-half-cycle azimuthal separation of the two emitting spots. The offset angle from the antipode is inferred to be above 25° with 84% probability. This seems to exclude a centered-dipolar magnetic field in PSR J0740+6620.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations111
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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