MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901581955 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aaf1ab

Hypermassive Neutron Star Disk Outflows and Blue Kilonovae

2018· article· en· W2901581955 on OpenAlexaff
Steven Fahlman, Rodrigo Fernández

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKilonovaPhysicsEjectaAstrophysicsNeutron starOutflowAccretion (finance)Angular momentumNeutrinoBlack hole (networking)SupernovaClassical mechanicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We study mass ejection from accretion disks around newly formed hypermassive neutron stars (HMNSs). Standard kilonova model fits to GW170817 require at least a lanthanide-poor (“blue”) and lanthanide-rich (“red”) component. The existence of a blue component has been used as evidence for an HMNS remnant of finite lifetime, but average disk outflow velocities from existing long-term HMNS simulations fall short of the inferred value (∼0.25c) by a factor of ∼2. Here we use time-dependent, axisymmetric hydrodynamic simulations of HMNS disks to explore the limits of the model and its ability to account for observations. For physically plausible parameter choices compatible with GW170817, we find that hydrodynamic models that use shear viscosity to transport angular momentum cannot eject matter with mass-averaged velocities larger than ∼0.15c. While outflow velocities in our simulations can exceed the asymptotic value for a steady-state neutrino-driven wind, the increase in the average velocity due to viscosity is not sufficient. Therefore, viscous HMNS disk winds cannot reproduce by themselves the ejecta properties inferred from multi-component fits to kilonova light curves from GW170817. Three possible resolutions remain feasible within standard merger ejecta channels: more sophisticated radiative transfer models that allow for photon reprocessing between ejecta components, inclusion of magnetic stresses, or enhancement of the dynamical ejecta. We provide fits to our disk outflow models once they reach homologous expansion.

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.281
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations47
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207