MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1970387030 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/2/183

GALACTIC ULTRACOMPACT X-RAY BINARIES: EMPIRICAL LUMINOSITIES

2013· article· en· W1970387030 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobular clusterMilky WayLuminosityLuminosity functionBulgeGalaxyField (mathematics)Instability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultracompact X-ray binaries (UCXBs) are thought to have relatively simple binary evolution post-contact, leading to clear predictions of their luminosity function. We test these predictions by studying the long-term behavior of known UCXBs in our Galaxy, principally using data from the MAXI All-Sky Survey and the Galactic bulge scans with RXTE 's Proportional Counter Array instrument. Strong luminosity variations are common (and well documented) among persistent UCXBs, which requires an explanation other than the disk instability mechanism. We measure the luminosity function of known UCXBs in the Milky Way, which extends to lower luminosities than some proposed theoretical luminosity functions of UCXBs. The difference between field and globular cluster (GC) X-ray luminosity functions in other galaxies cannot be explained by an increased fraction of UCXBs in GCs. Instead, our measured luminosity function suggests that UCXBs only make up a small fraction of the X-ray binaries above a few × 10 36 erg s −1 in both old field populations and GCs.

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)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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