MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997262643 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/768/2/184

GALACTIC ULTRACOMPACT X-RAY BINARIES: DISK STABILITY AND EVOLUTION

2013· article· en· W1997262643 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhite dwarfInstabilityAccretion (finance)Dwarf novaCataclysmic variable starSpectral lineStar (game theory)StarsHelium

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the mass transfer rates and disk stability conditions of ultracompact X-ray binaries (UCXBs) using empirical time-averaged X-ray luminosities from Paper I (Cartwright et al. 2013) and compiled information from the literature. The majority of UCXBs are consistent with evolutionary tracks for white dwarf donors. Three UCXBs with orbital periods longer than 40 minutes have mass transfer rates above 10^{-10} Msun/year, inconsistent with white dwarf donor tracks. We show that if helium star donors can retain their initial high entropy, they can explain the observed mass transfer rates of these UCXBs. Several UCXBs show persistent luminosities apparently below the disk instability limit for irradiated He accretion disks. We point out that a predominantly C and/or O disk (as observed in the optical spectra of several) lowers the disk instability limit, explaining this disagreement. The orbital period and low time-averaged mass transfer rate of 2S 0918-549 provide evidence that the donor star is a low-entropy C/O white dwarf, consistent with optical spectra. We combine existing information to constrain the masses of the donors in 4U 1916-053 (0.064+-0.010 Msun) and 4U 1626-67 (<0.036 Msun for a 1.4 Msun neutron star). We show that 4U 1626-67 is indeed persistent, and not undergoing a transient outburst, leaving He star models as the best explanation for the donor.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.668
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 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

Citations67
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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