MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018625833 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/800/1/32

HERCULES X-1: USING ECLIPSE TO MEASURE THE X-RAY CORONA

2015· article· en· W2018625833 on OpenAlexaff
D. A. Leahy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsNeutron starCorona (planetary geology)Hydrostatic equilibriumAccretion (finance)X-ray binaryFlux (metallurgy)OutflowEclipseCompton scatteringScatteringAstronomyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Observations of HZ Her/Her X-1 by the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer during High State X-ray eclipses are analyzed. After a sharp ingress caused by the neutron star receding behind the companion star HZ Her, X-ray flux smoothly declines to a minimum at mid-eclipse. It then increases smoothly until egress. The mid-eclipse flux implies an extended emission region around the neutron star that is larger than that of HZ Her. The constancy of the X-ray softness ratio is consistent with electron scattering by an ionized corona. The corona is modeled as spherically symmetric with a power-law density profile. We find a best fit of ∝ r −1.25 with a normalization of ≃ 10 12 cm −3 at r = 2 × 10 10 cm. The corona could either be in hydrostatic equilibrium, with heating by Compton scattering, a fast outflow, with a high mass-loss rate of ∼10 18 gm s −1 , or a hybrid, with an inner hydrostatic region and outer slow flow with a low mass-loss rate. A brightening at orbital phase 0.94 is suggested to be caused by the impact of the accretion stream with the accretion disk.

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)0.000
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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