MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2258831162 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2081

Insights into tidal disruption of stars from PS1-10jh

2015· article· en· W2258831162 on OpenAlexaff
Linda E. Strubbe, Norman Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsOutflowSupernovaRadiation pressureRADIUSLuminosityAstronomyStarsPhotoionizationLine (geometry)Accretion (finance)IonizationGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Was PS1-10jh, an optical/ultraviolet transient discovered by the Pan-STARRS Medium Deep Survey, the tidal disruption of a star by a massive black hole (BH)? We address two aspects of the problem: the composition of the putative disrupted object (using the spectroscopic data), and the energetics of the observed gas and radiation (using the photometric data). We perform photoionization calculations and compare with the observed lower limit of the line ratio |$L_{\rm He\,\small {II}\,\, 4686}/L_{\rm H\alpha }>5$| to argue that this event was not the disruption of a solar-type star, and instead was likely the disruption of a helium core (as first proposed by Gezari et al.). Disruption of such a dense object requires a relatively small central BH, MBH ≲ 2 × 105 M⊙. We use the photometric data to infer that PS1-10jh comprised an outflow of ∼0.01 M⊙ of gas, escaping from the BH at ∼1000 km s−1, and we propose that this outflow was driven primarily by radiation pressure trapped by Thomson and resonance line scattering. The large ratio of radiated energy to kinetic energy, Erad/EK ∼ 104, together with the large value of Erad ∼ 2 × 1051 erg, suggests that the outflow was shocked at large radius (perhaps similar to superluminous supernovae or the internal shock model for gamma-ray bursts). We describe puzzles in the physics of PS1-10jh, and discuss how this event may help us understand future tidal disruptions and super-Eddington accretion events as well.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.218
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 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

Citations39
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207