MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2617250680 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stx1290

Episodic mass ejections from common-envelope objects

2017· article· en· W2617250680 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew Clayton, Philipp Podsiadlowski, Natalia Ivanova, Stephen Justham

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsCommon envelopeEnvelope (radar)PhysicsAstrophysicsAmplitudeSpiral (railway)Phase (matter)DissipationOpticsStarsWhite dwarfQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After the initial fast spiral-in phase experienced by a common-envelope binary, the system may enter a slow, self-regulated phase, possibly lasting hundreds of years, in which all the energy released by orbital decay can be efficiently transported to the surface, where it is radiated away. If the remaining envelope is to be removed during this phase, this removal must occur through some as-yet-undetermined mechanism. We carried out 1D hydrodynamic simulations of a low-mass red giant undergoing a synthetic common-envelope event in such a slow spiral-in phase, using the stellar evolutionary code mesa. We simulated the heating of the envelope due to frictional dissipation from a binary companion's orbit in multiple configurations and investigated the response of the giant's envelope. We find that our model envelopes become dynamically unstable and develop large-amplitude pulsations, with periods in the range 3–20 yr and very short growth time-scales of similar order. The shocks and associated rebounds that emerge as these pulsations grow are in some cases strong enough to dynamically eject shells of matter of up to 0.1 M⊙, ∼10 per cent of the mass of the envelope, from the stellar surface at above escape velocity. These ejections are seen to repeat within a few decades, leading to a time-averaged mass-loss rate of the order of 10−3 M⊙ yr−1, which is sufficiently high to represent a candidate mechanism for removing the entire envelope over the duration of the slow spiral-in phase.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.220
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations85
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207