MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052615736 · doi:10.1086/324157

Hydrostatic Expansion and Spin Changes during Type I X‐Ray Bursts

2002· article· en· W2052615736 on OpenAlexaff
A. Cumming, Sharon M. Morsink, Lars Bildsten, John L. Friedman, D. E. Holz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsMoment of inertiaAngular momentumNeutron starHydrostatic equilibriumSpin (aerodynamics)Atmosphere (unit)AstrophysicsDifferential rotationRotation (mathematics)Conservation lawComputational physicsClassical mechanicsStarsQuantum mechanicsGeometryThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present calculations of the spin-down of a neutron star atmosphere due to hydrostatic expansion during a type I X-ray burst. We show that Cumming & Bildsten incorrectly calculated the change in the moment of inertia of the atmosphere during a type I burst, resulting in a factor of 2 overestimation of the magnitude of the spin-down for rigidly rotating atmospheres. We derive the angular momentum conservation law in general relativity, both analytically for the case of slow rotation and numerically for rapidly rotating stars. We show that general relativity has a small effect on the angular momentum conservation law, at the level of 5%-10%. We show how to rescale our fiducial results to different neutron star masses, rotation rates, and equations of state and present some detailed rotational profiles. Comparing our results with recent observations of large frequency shifts in MXB 1658-298 and 4U 1916-053, we find that the spin-down expected if the atmosphere rotates rigidly is a factor of 2-3 less than the observed values. If differential rotation is allowed to persist, we find that the upper layers of the atmosphere do spin down by an amount comparable to or greater than the observed values. However, there is no compelling reason to expect the observed spin frequency to be that of only the outermost layers of the atmosphere. We conclude that hydrostatic expansion and angular momentum conservation alone cannot account for the largest frequency shifts observed during type I bursts.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations36
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207