Colliding Winds in Symbiotic Binary Systems. I. Analytic and Numerical Solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present new formulations of binary colliding wind models appropriate to symbiotic star systems. The derived models differ from previous formulations in assuming mixing of the shocked material from both incoming streams, rather than postulating a self-sustaining contact discontinuity. The CWb model (colliding winds, binary) extends the work of Girard and Willson by the derivation of an adiabatic temperature, the consideration of radiative cooling, the inclusion of thermal pressures in the incoming winds, and the treatment of interaction shells of finite thickness and density. The finite thickness of the interaction shell allows for calculation of its radiative intensity distribution. The CWc model (colliding winds, concentric) is a similar extension of the model of Kwok, Purton, and Fitzgerald. It is derived in a manner parallel to that of the CWb model, thereby facilitating a unification of the two models. A unified model is desired since wind collisions in symbiotic systems should include aspects of both CWb and CWc interactions. Two examples of model applications are presented: a comparison of the flux densities arising from colliding winds (CWb model) with those arising from the ionization of the surrounding medium (STB model) in the galactic population of symbiotic stars, and model imaging of the symbiotic nova HM Sge.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".