MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Formation and evolution of compact binaries in globular clusters - I. Binaries with white dwarfs

2006· article· en· W2060335264 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhite dwarfGlobular clusterSupernovaCluster (spacecraft)Common envelopeBrown dwarfCircumbinary planetStar clusterStellar evolution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the first of a series, we study the stellar dynamical and evolutionary processes leading to the formation of compact binaries containing white dwarfs (WDs) in dense globular clusters (GCs). We examine the processes leading to the creation of X-ray binaries such as cataclysmic variables (CVs) and AM CVn systems. Using numerical simulations, we identify the dominant formation channels and we predict the expected numbers and characteristics of detectable systems, emphasizing how the cluster sources differ from the field population. We explore the dependence of formation rates on cluster properties and we explain in particular why the distribution of CVs has only a weak dependence on cluster density. We also discuss the frequency of dwarf nova outbursts in GCs and their connection with moderately strong WD magnetic fields. We examine the rates of Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) via both single and double degenerate channels in clusters and we argue that those rates may contribute to the total SN Ia rate in elliptical galaxies. Considering coalescing WD binaries, we discuss possible constraints on the common envelope evolution of their progenitors and we derive theoretical expectations for gravitational wave detection by Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA).

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.653

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 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

Citations145
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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