MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966146841 · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/731/2/l36

COMMON ENVELOPE: ENTHALPY CONSIDERATION

2011· article· en· W1966146841 on OpenAlexaff
Natalia Ivanova, S. Chaichenets

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvelope (radar)PhysicsCommon envelopeEnergy balanceEnergy (signal processing)PopulationEvent (particle physics)EnthalpyAstrophysicsAtomic physicsThermodynamicsQuantum mechanicsWhite dwarfStarsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this Letter, we discuss a modification to the criterion for the common envelope (CE) event to result in envelope dispersion. We emphasize that the current energy criterion for the CE phase is not sufficient for an instability of the CE, nor for an ejection. However, in some cases, stellar envelopes undergo stationary mass outflows , which are likely to occur during the slow spiral-in stage of the CE event. We propose the condition for such outflows, in a manner similar to the currently standard α CE λ-prescription but with an addition of P /ρ term in the energy balance equation, accounting therefore for the enthalpy of the envelope rather than merely the gas internal energy. This produces a significant correction, which might help to dispense with an unphysically high value of energy efficiency parameter during the CE phase, currently required in the binary population synthesis studies to make the production of low-mass X-ray binaries with a black hole companion to match the observations.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations54
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207