MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134822887 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/791/2/106

CARBON SYNTHESIS IN STEADY-STATE HYDROGEN AND HELIUM BURNING ON ACCRETING NEUTRON STARS

2014· article· en· W2134822887 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrogenHeliumCarbon fibersAccretion (finance)Neutron starStarsNeutronNucleosynthesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Superbursts from accreting neutron stars probe nuclear reactions at extreme densities (ρ ≈ 10 9 g cm −3 ) and temperatures ( T > 10 9 K). These bursts (∼1000 times more energetic than type I X-ray bursts) are most likely triggered by unstable ignition of carbon in a sea of heavy nuclei made during the rapid proton capture process (rp-process) of regular type I X-ray bursts (where the accumulated hydrogen and helium are burned). An open question is the origin of sufficient amounts of carbon, which is largely destroyed during the rp-process in X-ray bursts. We explore carbon production in steady-state burning via the rp-process, which might occur together with unstable burning in systems showing superbursts. We find that for a wide range of accretion rates and accreted helium mass fractions large amounts of carbon are produced, even for systems that accrete solar composition. This makes stable hydrogen and helium burning a viable source of carbon to trigger superbursts. We also investigate the sensitivity of the results to nuclear reactions. We find that the 14 O(α, p ) 17 F reaction rate introduces by far the largest uncertainties in the 12 C yield.

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)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations19
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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