trailThe pulsar XTE J1814-338 has an inferred radius of about 7 km, smaller than neutron star models predict
Some compact star observations are difficult to explain with conventional neutron star models
Burst-oscillation pulse-profile measurement· for
Pulse profile modeling of XTE J1814-338's thermonuclear burst oscillations yields a radius near 7 km and a mass near 1.2 solar masses
The single uniform-temperature hotspot model adequately describes XTE J1814-338's burst oscillation pulse profiles for mass-radius inference
Standard nuclear-matter equations of state predict radii of about 11 to 13 km for neutron stars near 1.2 solar masses
atomic
Model dependence of the radius inference· against
Earlier pulse-shape modeling of XTE J1814-338's accretion-powered pulsations indicated a radius of roughly 12 to 22 km
atomic
Inferred masses and radii of compact stars depend strongly on assumed distance and atmosphere composition
atomic
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
The pulsar XTE J1814-338 has an inferred radius of about 7 km, smaller than neutron star models predict
✓VerifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →credence 0.95Credence, from 0 to 1: the Steward's probability that the claim, as stated, is true. Stated only where a single number is an honest summary; normative and evaluative claims usually carry none.constitution →
1depended on by
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →↑supportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →⇄contestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →○unsupportedNo credible evidence found, though the claim is not contradicted.constitution →✕contradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →verified factopen questionvalue premisesupportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →Fig. Detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.