MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963720072 · doi:10.1017/s1743921315007838

Monte Carlo modeling of globular star clusters: many primordial binaries and IMBH formation

2014· article· en· W2963720072 on OpenAlexafffund
Mirek Giersz, Nathan W. C. Leigh, Michael Marks, Arkadiusz Hypki, Abbas Askar

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Astronomical Union · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGlobular clusterPhysicsAstrophysicsIntermediate-mass black holeMass segregationStar clusterBlack hole (networking)Cluster (spacecraft)StarsAccretion (finance)Blue stragglerMass ratioBinary numberSpin-flip

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We will discuss the evolution of star clusters with a large initial binary fraction, up to 95%. The initial binary population is chosen to follow the invariant orbital-parameter distributions suggested by Kroupa (1995). The Monte Carlo MOCCA simulations of star cluster evolution are compared to the observations of Milone et al . (2012) for photometric binaries. It is demonstrated that the observed dependence on cluster mass of both the binary fraction and the ratio of the binary fractions inside and outside of the half mass radius are well recovered by the MOCCA simulations. This is due to a rapid decrease in the initial binary fraction due to the strong density-dependent destruction of wide binaries described by Marks, Kroupa & Oh (2011). We also discuss a new scenario for the formation of intermediate mass black holes in dense star clusters. In this scenario, intermediate mass black holes are formed as a result of dynamical interactions of hard binaries containing a stellar mass black hole, with other stars and binaries. We will discuss the necessary conditions to initiate the process of intermediate mass black hole formation and the dependence of its mass accretion rate on the global cluster properties.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Astronomical UnionSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207