Colliding winds in five WR+O systems of the Southern hemisphere
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the results of an optical spectroscopic follow-up of five WR+O systems of the Southern hemisphere that have not been studied so far for wind–wind collisions: WR 12 (WN8h), WR 21 (WN5o+O7V), WR 30 (WC6+O7.5V), WR 31 (WN4o+O8) and WR 47 (WN6o+O5). Observations were made over an entire contiguous month using the Garrison spectrograph attached to the 0.6-m Helen Sawyer Hogg telescope at Complejo Astronomico El Leoncito. We obtain improved orbital elements for these five systems and provide an estimation of the orbital inclination and shock-cone opening angle for four of them by analysing excess emission profiles with the geometrical model of Lührs. We argue that line variability in one of the stars (WR 12) might be dominated by some dynamic instabilities in the shocked plasma, making the model inappropriate in this case. A sixth star, WR 69 (WC9d+OB), was observed in the programme based on its published photometric period of 2.293 ± 0.005 d. While we found a probable spectroscopic period of 2.15 ± 0.04 d compatible with that of Marchenko et al. (1998), the period is unlikely related to orbital effects, rather to (relatively fast) rotation of the WC9d component of a much longer binary system.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".