MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mergers of Magnetized Neutron Stars with Spinning Black Holes: Disruption, Accretion, and Fallback

2010· article· en· W2015978417 on OpenAlexaff
Sarvnipun Chawla, Matthew Anderson, Michael Besselman, Luis Lehner, Steven L. Liebling, Patrick M. Motl, David Neilsen

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Letters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphPerimeter InstituteCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeutron starPhysicsAccretion (finance)SpinningAstrophysicsAccretion discStarsGamma-ray burst progenitorsNuclear physicsAstronomySpin-flipMaterials scienceIntermediate-mass black hole

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigate the merger of a neutron star in orbit about a spinning black hole in full general relativity with a mass ratio of 5:1, allowing the star to have an initial magnetization of 10(12) G. We present the resulting gravitational waveform and analyze the fallback accretion as the star is disrupted. We see no significant dynamical effects in the simulations or changes in the gravitational waveform resulting from the initial magnetization. We find that only a negligible amount of matter becomes unbound; 99% of the neutron star material has a fallback time of 10 seconds or shorter to reach the region of the central engine and that 99.99% of the star will interact with the central disk and black hole within 3 hours.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 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

Citations97
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review LettersSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207