MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165425276 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/786/1/39

V1309 Sco—UNDERSTANDING A MERGER

2014· article· en· W2165425276 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommon envelopeAngular momentumOrbital periodBinary numberEnvelope (radar)Binary starStar (game theory)Radiative transferEvent (particle physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the two outcomes of a common envelope (CE) event is a merger of the two stars. To date, the best known case of a binary merger is the V1309 Sco outburst, where the orbital period was known and observed to decay up to the outburst. Using the hydrodynamical code StarSmasher , we study in detail which characteristics of the progenitor binary affect the outburst and produce the best match with observations. We have developed a set of tools in order to quantify any CE event. We consider binaries consisting of a 1.52 M ☉ giant and a 0.16 M ☉ companion with P orb ∼ 1.4 days, varying the nature of the companion and its synchronization. We show that all considered progenitor binaries evolve toward the merger primarily because of Darwin instability. The merger is accompanied by mass ejection that proceeds in several separate mass outbursts and takes away a few percent of the donor mass. This very small mass, nonetheless, is important as it is not only sufficient to explain the observed light curve, but it also carries away up to one-third of both the initial total angular momentum and initial orbital energy. We find that all synchronized systems experience L 2 mass loss that operates during just a few days prior to the merger and produces ring-shaped ejecta. The formed star is always a strongly heated radiative star that differentially rotates. We conclude that the case of a synchronized binary with a main-sequence companion gives the best match with observations of V1309 Sco.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.234
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations135
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207