MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003828582 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab63cd

The ELM Survey. VIII. Ninety-eight Double White Dwarf Binaries

2020· article· en· W3003828582 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsWhite dwarfStarsSkyLow MassBinary starGravitational wave

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We present the final sample of 98 detached double white dwarf (WD) binaries found in the Extremely Low Mass (ELM) Survey, a spectroscopic survey targeting <0.3 M ⊙ He-core WDs completed in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey footprint. Over the course of the survey we observed ancillary low-mass WD candidates like GD 278, which we show is a P = 0.19 day double WD binary, as well as candidates that turn out to be field blue straggler/subdwarf A-type stars with luminosities too high to be WDs given their Gaia parallaxes. Here, we define a clean sample of ELM WDs that is complete within our target selection and magnitude range 15 < g 0 < 20 mag. The measurements are consistent with 100% of ELM WDs being 0.0089 < P < 1.5 day double WD binaries, 35% of which belong to the Galactic halo. We infer that these are mostly He+CO WD binaries given the measurement constraints. The merger rate of the observed He+CO WD binaries exceeds the formation rate of stable mass-transfer AM CVn binaries by a factor of 25, and so the majority of He+CO WD binaries must experience unstable mass transfer and merge. The systems with the shortest periods, such as J0651+2844, are signature LISA verification binaries that can be studied with gravitational waves and light.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.121
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations111
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207