MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Magellanic Cloud WC/WO Wolf-Rayet stars - I. Binary frequency and Roche lobe overflow formation

2001· article· en· W1993308835 on OpenAlexaff
P. Bartzakos, A. F. J. Moffat, Virpi Sinikka Niemelä

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWolf–Rayet starPhysicsRoche lobeLarge Magellanic CloudAstrophysicsSmall Magellanic CloudMetallicityStarsAstronomyBinary starBinary number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A nearly complete sample of 24 Magellanic Cloud WC/WO subclass Wolf–Rayet stars is studied spectroscopically and photometrically to determine its binary frequency. Theory predicts the Roche lobe overflow produced Wolf–Rayet binary frequency to be 52±14 per cent in the Large Magellanic Cloud and 100 per cent in the Small Magellanic Cloud, not counting non-Roche lobe overflow Wolf–Rayet binaries. Lower ambient metallicity (Z) leads to lower opacity, preventing all but the most massive (hence luminous) single stars from reaching the Wolf–Rayet stage. However, theory predicts that Roche lobe overflow even in binaries of modest mass will lead to Wolf–Rayet stars in binaries with periods below approximately 200 d, for initial periods below approximately 1000 d, independent of Z. By examining their absolute continuum magnitudes, radial velocity variations, emission-line equivalent widths and full widths at half-maximum, a WC/WO binary frequency of only 13 per cent, significantly lower than the prediction, is found in the Large Magellanic Cloud. In the unlikely event that all of the cases with a less certain binary status actually turn out to be binary, current theory and observation would agree. (The Small Magellanic Cloud contains only one WC/WO star, which happens to be a binary.) The three WC+O binaries in the Large Magellanic Cloud all have periods well below 1000 d. The large majority of WC/WO stars in such environments apparently can form without the aid of a binary companion. Current evolutionary scenarios appear to have difficulty explaining either the relatively large number of Wolf–Rayet stars in the Magellanic Clouds, or the formation of Wolf–Rayet stars in general.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations83
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207