MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413804015 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ade4c0

Transient Blurring of the Scintillation Arc of Pulsar B1737+13

2025· article· en· W4413804015 on OpenAlexafffund
Y.-R. Chen, D. N. Baker, Ue‐Li Pen, Daniel R. Stinebring

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsPulsarScintillationLine-of-sightVery-long-baseline interferometryLens (geology)AstrophysicsSkyCurvatureOpticsPosition angleAstronomyGeometryDetector

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For many pulsars, the scattering structures responsible for scintillation are typically dominated by a single, thin screen along the line of sight, which persists for years or decades. In recent years, an increasing number of doubly lensed events have been observed, where a secondary lens crosses the line of sight. This causes additional or distorted scintillation arcs over timescales ranging from days to months. In this work, we report such a transient event for pulsar B1737+13 and propose a possible lensing geometry including the distance to both lenses and the orientation of the main screen. Using phase retrieval techniques to separate the two lenses in the wavefield, we report the curvature and rate of motion of features associated with the secondary lens as it passed through the line of sight. By fitting the annual variation of the curvature, we report a possible distance and orientation for the main screen. The distance of the secondary lens is found by mapping the secondary feature onto the sky and tracking its position over time for different distances. We validate this method using B0834+06, for which the screen solutions are known through VLBI, and successfully recover the correct solution for the secondary feature. With the identified lensing geometry, we are able to estimate the size of the secondary lens, 1–3 au. Although this is an appropriate size for a structure that could cause an extreme scattering event, we do not have conclusive evidence for or against that possibility.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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