A radio-map of the colliding winds in the very massive binary system HD93129A
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. Radio observations are an effective tool for discovering particle acceleration regions in colliding-wind binaries through detection of synchrotron radiation. Wind-collision region (WCR) models can reproduce the radio continuum spectra of massive binaries. However, key constraints for models come from high-resolution imaging. Only five WCRs have been resolved to date at radio frequencies on milliarcsec (mas) angular scales. The source HD 93129A, a prototype of the very few known O2 I stars, is a promising target for study. Recently, a second massive, early-type star about 50 mas away was discovered, and a non-thermal radio source was detected in the region. Preliminary long-baseline array data suggest that a significant fraction of the radio emission from the system comes from a putative WCR. Aims. We seek evidence that HD 93129A is a massive binary system with colliding stellar winds that produce non-thermal radiation through spatially resolved images of the radio emitting regions. Methods. We completed observations with the Australian Long Baseline Array (LBA) to resolve the system at mas angular resolutions and reduced archival Australia Telescope Compact Array (ATCA) data to derive the total radio emission. We also compiled optical astrometric data of the system in a homogeneous way. We reduced historical Hubble Space Telescope data and obtained absolute and relative astrometry with milliarcsec accuracy. Results. The astrometric analysis leads us to conclude that the two stars in HD 93129A form a gravitationally bound system. The LBA data reveal an extended arc-shaped non-thermal source between the two stars, which is indicative of a WCR. The wind momentum-rate ratio of the two stellar winds is estimated. The ATCA data show a point source with a change in flux level between 2003-4 and 2008-9, which is modeled with a non-thermal power-law spectrum with spectral indices of −1.03 ± 0.09 and −1.21 ± 0.03, respectively. The mass-loss rates derived from the deduced thermal radio emission and from the characteristics of the WCR are consistent with estimates derived by other authors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".