MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068303945 · doi:10.1086/525522

Models of Type I X-Ray Bursts from GS 1826-24: A Probe of rp-Process Hydrogen Burning

2007· article· en· W2068303945 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermonuclear fusionNucleosynthesisAccretion (finance)MetallicityHydrogenGamma-ray burstStellar evolutionNeutron starStellar massThermal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 lightcurves using multizone models which follow the rp-process nucleosynthesis with an extensive nuclear reaction network. The theoretical and observed burst lightcurves show remarkable agreement. The models naturally explain the slow ~5s rise and long ~100s tails 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 constrains the distance to the source. The main difference is that the observed lightcurves 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 which 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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.627
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations116
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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