Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Supercritical (or super‐Eddington) accretion seems to occur in various black hole objects, including microquasars and ultra‐luminous X‐ray sources. We, here, elucidate the theory of supercritical accretion flow based on our two‐dimensional (2‐D) global radiation‐hydrodynamic (RHD) and radiation‐magnetohydrodynamic (RMHD) simulations. We first confirm that there is practically no limit to the accretion rate onto black holes. We then discuss several noteworthy observable features of the supercritical flow; that is, mild beaming, relativistic, collimated outflow, and inverse‐Compton scattering spectra by optically thick outflow. For face‐on observers the maximum apparent (isotropic) luminosities of ∼22LE (with L E being the Eddington luminosity) can be achieved for the mass supply rate of ∼50LE/c2. Even larger isotropic luminosities are possible for higher mass supply rates. For edge‐on observers, conversely, the apparent luminosity will be much less. It will be even lower, if the the innermost bright part of the disk is obscured by the outer part. High velocity (>0.5c) jet accelerated by radiation‐pressure force and collimated by Lorentz force is also expected. We expect large kinetic luminosity, ∼0.1LE, and high mass outflow rate, ∼10LE/c2. This may account for large ionizing nebulae around ULXs (© 2011 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".