MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1989560122 · doi:10.1086/528932

The Total Merger Rate of Compact Object Binaries in the Local Universe

2008· article· en· W1989560122 on OpenAlexaff
Aleksander Sądowski, Krzysztof Belczyński, T. Bulik, Natalia Ivanova, Frederic A. Rasio, R. O’Shaughnessy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsNeutron starLIGOAstrophysicsBlack hole (networking)Compact starGravitational waveStellar black holePopulationAstronomyUniverseBinary black holeStar clusterStarsGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using a population synthesis approach, we compute the total merger rate in the local Universe for double neutron stars, double black holes, and black hole – neutron star binaries. These compact binaries are the prime source candidates for gravitational-wave detection by LIGO and VIRGO. We account for mergers originating both from field populations and from dense stellar clusters, where dynamical interactions can significantly enhance the production of double compact objects. For both populations we use the same treatment of stellar evolution. Our results indicate that the merger rates of double neutron stars and black hole – neutron star binaries are strongly dominated by field populations, while merging black hole binaries are formed much more effectively in dense stellar clusters. The overall merger rate of double compact objects depends sensitively on the (largely unknown) initial mass fraction contained in dense clusters (fcl). For fcl � 0.0001, the Advanced LIGO detection rate will be dominated by field populations of double neutron star mergers, with a small but significant number of detections ∼ 20 yr −1. However for a higher mass fraction in clusters, fcl � 0.001, the detection rate will be dominated by numerous mergers of double black holes

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 score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations140
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207