MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modelling the spectra of colliding winds in the Wolf-Rayet WC7+O binaries WR 42 and WR 79

2000· article· en· W2050451753 on OpenAlexafffund
Grant M. Hill, A. F. J. Moffat, Nicole St‐Louis, P. Bartzakos

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalDominion Astrophysical ObservatoryUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsPhysicsWolf–Rayet starAstrophysicsSpectral lineLine (geometry)Flux (metallurgy)Wind speedPhase (matter)Radial velocityComputational physicsStarsAstronomyMeteorologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have obtained complete phase coverage of the WC7+O binaries WR 42 = HD 97152 and WR 79 = HD 152270 with high signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), moderate-resolution spectra. Remarkable orbital phase-locked profile variations of the C iiiΛ5696 line are observed and interpreted as arising from colliding wind effects. Within this scenario, we have modelled the spectra using a purely geometrical model that assumes a cone-shaped wind-wind interaction region which partially wraps around the O star. Such modelling holds the exciting promise of revealing a number of interesting parameters for WR+O binaries, such as the orbital inclination, the streaming velocity of material in the interaction region and the ratio of wind momentum flux. Knowledge of these parameters in turn leads to the possibility of a better understanding of WR star masses, mass-loss rates and wind region characteristics.

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)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations56
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207