MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003679311 · doi:10.1086/592237

Models for the Observable System Parameters of Ultraluminous X‐Ray Sources

2008· article· en· W2003679311 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalaxyLuminosityBlack hole (networking)ObservableAccretion (finance)Binary numberFlux (metallurgy)Supermassive black hole

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the evolution of the properties of model populations of ultraluminous X-ray sources (ULXs) consisting of a black-hole accretor in a binary with a donor star. We have computed models corresponding to three different populations of black-hole binaries; two invoke stellar-mass (~10 Msun) black hole accretors, and the third utilizes intermediate-mass (~1000 Msun) black holes (IMBHs). For each of the three populations, we computed 30,000 binary evolution sequences using a full Henyey stellar evolution code. The optical flux from the model ULXs includes contributions from the accretion disk, due to x-ray irradiation as well as intrinsic viscous heating, and that due to the donor star. We present "probability images" for the ULX systems in planes of color-magnitude, orbital period vs. X-ray luminosity, and luminosity vs. evolution time. Estimates of the numbers of ULXs in a typical galaxy as functions of time and of X-ray luminosity are also presented. Our model CMDs are compared with six ULX counterparts that have been discussed in the literature. Overall, the observed systems seem more closely related to model systems with very high-mass donors (> ~25 Msun) in binaries with IMBH accretors. However, significant difficulties remain with both the IMBH and stellar-mass black hole models.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations52
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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