MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058149148 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/2/1057

UNDERSTANDING COMPACT OBJECT FORMATION AND NATAL KICKS. II. THE CASE OF XTE J1118 + 480

2009· article· en· W2058149148 on OpenAlexaff
Tassos Fragos, B. Willems, V. Kalogera, Natalia Ivanova, Gabriel Rockefeller, Chris L. Fryer, Patrick Young

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsBlack hole (networking)Solar massRoche lobeMetallicityAstronomyBinary systemStellar black holeBinary numberBinary starStarsGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, an increasing number of proper motions have been measured for Galactic X-ray binaries. When supplemented with accurate determinations of the component masses, orbital period, and donor effective temperature, these kinematical constraints harbor a wealth of information on the system’s past evolution. Here, we consider all this available information to reconstruct the full evolutionary history of the black hole X-ray binary XTEJ1118+480, assuming that the system originated in the Galactic disk and the donor has solar metallicity. This analysis accounts for four evolutionary phases: mass transfer through the ongoing X-ray phase, tidal evolution before the onset of Roche-lobe overflow, motion through the Galactic potential after the formation of the black hole, and binary orbital dynamics due to explosive mass loss and possibly a black hole natal kick at the time of core collapse. We find that right after black hole formation, the system consists of a ≃ 6.0 − 10.0M ⊙ black hole and a ≃ 1.0 − 1.6M⊙ main-sequence star. We also find that that an asymmetric natal kick is not only plausible but required for the formation of this system, and derive a lower and upper limit on the black hole natal kick velocity magnitude of 80km s −1 and 310km s −1, respectively.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.779

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations118
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207