MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416565648 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0e54

Gravitational Redshift for Rapidly Rotating Neutron Stars

2025· article· en· W4416565648 on OpenAlexaff
Zsombor Jakab, Sharon M. Morsink

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutron starPulsarSchwarzschild radiusRedshiftRADIUSGravitational redshiftSchwarzschild metricFlux (metallurgy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The oblate Schwarzschild (OS) approximation is a method often used to compute the flux of X-rays emitted from a rapidly rotating neutron star. In this approximation, the oblate shape of the rotating star is embedded in the Schwarzschild metric, which is used to compute the redshift of photon energies as they propagate from the star to the telescope. In this paper, we demonstrate that there are small errors introduced by the standard treatment of photon redshift in the OS approximation and provide a simple method to correct these errors. These errors are constant in phase, so this results in a constant absolute reduction in the flux. For PSR J0740+6620, the most rapidly spinning of the pulsars observed by the Neutron star Interior Composition Explorer (NICER), we estimate the flux errors are less than 1%, which is an order of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty in the distance, so this does not affect the mass and radius constraints found for this pulsar. The errors for the other pulsars observed by NICER are even smaller. However, this correction should be included when analyzing data for more rapidly rotating X-ray pulsars with spin frequencies near 600 Hz.

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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