COMMON ENVELOPE: ON THE MASS AND THE FATE OF THE REMNANT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most important and uncertain stages in binary evolution is the common envelope (CE) event. Significant attention has been devoted in the literature so far to the energy balance expected to determine the outcome during the CE event. However, this question is intrinsically coupled with the problem of what is left from the donor star after the CE and its immediate evolution. In this paper we argue that an important stage has been overlooked: the post-CE remnant thermal readjustment (TR) phase. We propose a methodology for unambiguously defining the post-CE remnant mass after it has been thermally readjusted, namely, by calling the core boundary the radius in the hydrogen shell corresponding to the local maximum of the sonic velocity. We argue that the important consequences of the TR phase are (1) a change in the energy budget requirement for the CE binaries and (2) a companion spin-up and chemical enrichment, as a result of the mass transfer (MT) that occurs during the remnant TR. More CE binaries are expected to merge. If the companion is a neutron star (NS), it will be mildly recycled during the TR phase. The MT during the TR phase is much stronger than the accretion rate during the CE, and therefore satisfies the condition for hypercritical accretion better. We also argue that the TR phase is responsible for the production of mildly recycled pulsars in double NSs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".