MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064048604 · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/760/2/l24

ON THE ORIGIN OF THE METALLICITY DEPENDENCE IN DYNAMICALLY FORMED EXTRAGALACTIC LOW-MASS X-RAY BINARIES

2012· article· en· W2064048604 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobular clusterMetallicityBinary numberStarsLow MassRed giant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Globular clusters (GCs) effectively produce dynamically formed low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs). Observers detect ∼100 times more LMXBs per stellar mass in GCs compared to stars in the fields of galaxies. Observationally, metal-rich GCs are about three times more likely to contain an X-ray source than their metal-poor counterparts. Recent observations have shown that this ratio holds in extragalactic GCs for all bright X-ray sources with L X between 2 × 10 37 and 5 × 10 38 erg s −1 . In this Letter, we propose that the observed metallicity dependence of LMXBs in extragalactic GCs can be explained by the differences in the number densities and average masses of red giants in populations of different metallicities. Red giants serve as seeds for the dynamical production of bright LMXBs via two channels—binary exchanges and physical collisions—and the increase of the number densities and masses of red giants boost LMXB production, leading to the observed difference. We also discuss a possible effect of the age difference in stellar populations of different metallicities.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations13
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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