MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069452339 · doi:10.1086/324459

Spatially Resolved STIS Spectra of WR + OB Binaries with Colliding Winds

2001· article· en· W2069452339 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Lépine, Debra J. Wallace, Michael M. Shara, A. F. J. Moffat, Virpi Sinikka Niemelä

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsStarsSpace Telescope Imaging SpectrographSpectral lineO-type starEmission spectrumHubble space telescopeAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present spatially resolved spectra of the visual WR+OB massive binaries WR86, WR146, and WR147, obtained with the Space Telescope Imaging Spectrograph on board the Hubble Space Telescope. The systems are classified as follows: WR86 = WC7 + B0 III, WR146 = WC6 + O8 I-IIf, WR147 = WN8 + O5-7 I-II(f). Both WR146 and WR147 are known to have strong non-thermal radio emission arising in a wind-wind collision shock zone between the WR and OB components. We find that the spectra of their O companions show Halpha profiles in emission, indicative of large mass-loss rates, and consistent with the colliding-wind model. Our spectra indicate that the B component in WR86 has a low mass-loss rate, which possibly explains the fact that WR86, despite being a long period WR+OB binary, was not found to be a strong non-thermal radio emitter. Because of the small mass-loss rate of the B star component in WR86, the wind collision region must be closer to the B star and smaller in effective area, hence generating smaller amounts of non-thermal radio emission. Absolute magnitudes for all the stars are estimated based on the spectral types of the components (based on the tables by Schmidt-Kaler for OB stars, and van der Hucht for WR stars), and compared with actual, observed magnitude differences. While the derived luminosities for the WC7 and B0 III stars in WR86 are consistent with the observed magnitude difference, we find a discrepancy of at least 1.5 magnitudes between the observed luminosities of the components in each of WR146 and WR147 and the absolute magnitudes expected from their spectral types. In both cases, it looks as though either the WR components are about 2 magnitudes too bright for their spectral types, or that the O components are about 2 magnitudes too faint. We discuss possible explanations for this apparent discrepancy.

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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.586

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations30
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207