MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2766433451 · doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slx186

GW170817: a neutron star merger in a mass-transferring triple system

2017· article· en· W2766433451 on OpenAlexaff
Philip Chang, Norman Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsEjectaRoche lobeKilonovaAstrophysicsNeutron starAstronomyBinary starCommon envelopeX-ray binaryLight curveCircumbinary planetStarsSupernovaWhite dwarf

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The light curve of GW170817 is surprisingly blue and bright. Assuming that the event is a binary neutron star merger, we argue that blueness and brightness of the light curve is the result of ejecta that contains an substantial amount of thermal energy. To achieve this, the ejecta must be reheated at a substantial distance (1–2000 solar radii) from the merger to avoid losing the energy to adiabatic cooling. We show that this reheating can occur if the merger occurs in a hierarchical triple system where the outer star has evolved and filled its Roche lobe. The outer star feeds mass to the inner binary, forming a circumbinary disc, driving the inner binary to merge. Because the outer star fills its Roche lobe, a substantial fraction of the dynamical ejecta collides with the evolved star, reheating the ejecta in the process. We suggest that the process of mass transfer in hierarchical triples tends to form coplanar triple systems such as PSR J0337+1715, and may provide electromagnetic counterparts to binary black hole mergers.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters→Same topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research→French-language works237,207→