MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986094184 · doi:10.1086/500238

Models of Ultraluminous X‐Ray Sources with Intermediate‐Mass Black Holes

2006· article· en· W1986094184 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStarsBinary numberRADIUSPopulationLuminosityStellar evolutionOrbital elementsStar (game theory)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have computed models for ultraluminous X-ray sources ("ULXs") consisting of a black-hole accretor of intermediate mass ("IMBH"; e.g., ~1000 Msun) and a captured donor star. For each of four different sets of initial donor masses and orbital separations, we computed 30,000 binary evolution models using a full Henyey stellar evolution code. To our knowledge this is the first time that a population of X-ray binaries this large has been carried out with other than approximation methods, and it serves to demonstrate the feasibility of this approach to large-scale population studies of mass-transfer binaries. In the present study, we find that in order to have a plausible efficiency for producing active ULX systems with IMBHs having luminosities > 10^{40} ergs/sec, there are two basic requirements for the capture of companion/donor stars. First, the donor stars should be massive, i.e., > 8 Msun. Second, the initial orbital separations, after circularization, should be close, i.e., < 6-30 times the radius of the donor star when on the main sequence. Even under these optimistic conditions, we show that the production rate of IMBH-ULX systems may fall short of the observed values by factors of 10-100.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations55
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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