MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105731827 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/771/1/13

A SEARCH FOR RAPIDLY ACCRETING WHITE DWARFS IN THE SMALL MAGELLANIC CLOUD

2013· article· en· W3105731827 on OpenAlexaff
Kelly Lepo, M. H. van Kerkwijk

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhite dwarfPhysicsAstrophysicsSupernovaStarsAstronomyPhotosphereNebulaSmall Magellanic CloudLight curveSpectral line

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nature of the progenitors of Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) is still a mystery. While plausible candidates are known for both the single-degenerate and double-degenerate models, the observed numbers fall significantly short of what is required to reproduce the SNe Ia rate. Some of the most promising single-degenerate Type Ia progenitors are recurrent novae and super-soft sources (SSS). White dwarfs (WDs) with higher mass transfer rates can also be SN Ia progenitors. For these rapidly accreting white dwarfs (RAWDs), more material than is needed for steady burning accretes on the WD, and extends the WD's photosphere. Unlike SSS, such objects will likely not be detectable at soft X-ray energies, but will be bright at longer wavelengths, such as the far-ultraviolet (UV). Possible examples include LMC N66 and the V Sagittae stars. We present a survey using multi-object spectrographs looking for RAWDs in the central core of the Small Magellanic Cloud (SMC), from objects selected to be bright in the far-UV and with blue far UV − V colors. While we find some unusual objects, and recover known planetary nebula and Wolf–Rayet (WR) stars, we detect no candidate RAWD. The upper limits from this non-detection depend on our expectations of what an RAWD should look like, as well assumptions about the internal extinction of the SMC. Assuming they resemble LMC N66 or fainter versions of WR stars we set an upper limit of 10–14 RAWDs in the SMC. However, our survey is unlikely to detect objects like V Sge, and hence we cannot set meaningful upper limits if RAWDs generally resemble V Sge.

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
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations28
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207