MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050583905 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20064884

The superburst recurrence time in luminous persistent LMXBs

2006· article· en· W2050583905 on OpenAlexafffund
L. Keek, J. J. M. in ’t Zand, A. Cumming

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekMcGill UniversityCanadian Institute for Advanced Research
KeywordsAstrophysicsBrightnessPhysicsAccretion (finance)Neutron starAmbiguityLimit (mathematics)HeliumAstronomyAtomic physicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theory and observations favor stable helium burning as the most important means to produce fuel for superbursts on neutron star surfaces. However, all known superbursters exhibit unstable burning as well. This ambiguity prompted us to search for superbursts in data from the BeppoSAX Wide Field Cameras of ten luminous LMXBs, most of which do not exhibit normal type-I X-ray bursts. We found no superbursts and determine a lower limit on the recurrence time which varies between 30 and 76 days (90% confidence). All recurrence time limits except one are longer than the observed recurrence time for GX 17+2. This difference can be understood if the mass accretion rate in GX 17+2 is several tens of percent higher than in the other sources; alternatively, the accreted material in GX 17+2 might be hydrogen deficient, leading to larger carbon yields than in the other sources. We compare our results to the latest models of superbursts. As our search method is indiscriminate of the burst ignition scenario, the recurrence time limits may also be applied to other bursts of similar duration and brightness.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations11
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207