Models of Type I X-Ray Bursts from GS 1826-24: A Probe of rp-Process Hydrogen Burning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The X-ray burster GS 1826–24 shows extremely regular Type I X-ray bursts whose energetics and recurrence times agree well with thermonuclear ignition models. We present calculations of sequences of burst light curves using multizone models that follow the nucleosynthesis (αp and rp-processes) with an extensive nuclear reaction network. The theoretical and observed burst light curves show remarkable agreement. The models naturally explain the slow rise (duration ≈5 s) and long tails (≈100 s) of these bursts, as well as their dependence on mass accretion rate. This comparison provides further evidence for solar metallicity in the accreted material in this source and gives a distance to the source of 6.07 ± 0.18 kpc ξ −1/2 b , where ξ b is the burst emission anisotropy factor. The main difference is that the observed light curves do not show the distinct two-stage rise of the models. This may reflect the time for burning to spread over the stellar surface or may indicate that our treatment of heat transport or nuclear physics needs to be revised. The trends in burst properties with accretion rate are well reproduced by our spherically symmetric models that include chemical and thermal inertia from the ashes of previous bursts. Changes in the covering fraction of the accreted fuel are not required.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".