Protoplanetary Disk Evolution: Singles vs. Binaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Based on a large number of observations carried out in the last decade it appears that the fraction of stars with protoplanetary disks declines steadily between ~1 Myr and ~10 Myr. We do, however, know that the multiplicity fraction of star-forming regions can be as high as >50% and that multiples have reduced disk lifetimes on average. As a consequence, the observed roughly exponential disk decay can be fully attributed neither to single nor binary stars and its functional form may need revision. Observational evidence for a non-exponential decay has been provided by Kraus et al. (2012), who statistically correct previous disk frequency measurements for the presence of binaries and find agreement with models that feature a constantly high disk fraction up to ~3 Myr, followed by a rapid (≲2 Myr) decline. We present results from our high angular resolution observational program to study the fraction of protoplanetary disks of single and binary stars separately. We find that disk evolution timescales of stars bound in close binaries (<100 AU) are significantly reduced compared to wider binaries. The frequencies of accretors among single stars and wide binaries appear indistinguishable, and are found to be lower than predicted from planet forming disk models governed by viscous evolution and photoevaporation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".