WR 63: a multiple system (O+O) + WR?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The spectrum of the Wolf–Rayet (WR) star WR 63 contains spectral lines of two different O stars that show regular radial velocity (RV) variations with amplitudes of ∼160 and ∼225 km s−1 on a ∼4.03 d period. The light curve shows two narrow eclipses that are 0.2 mag deep on the same period as the RV changes. On the other hand, our data show no significant RV variations for the WR spectral lines. Those findings are compatible with WR 63 being a triple system composed of two non-interacting late-O stars orbiting a WR star on a period longer than 1000 d. The amplitude of the WR spectral line-profile variability reaches 7–8 per cent of the line intensity and seems related to a 0.04 mag periodic photometric variation. Large wind density structures are a possible origin for this variability, but our data are not sufficient to verify this. Our analysis shows that, should the three stars be bound, they would be coeval with an age of about 5.9 ± 1.4 Myr. The distance to the O stars is estimated to be $3.4\, \pm \, 0.5$ kpc. Their dynamical masses are 14.3 ± 0.1 and 10.3 ± 0.1 M⊙. Using rotating single-star evolutionary tracks, we estimate their initial masses to be 18 ± 2 and 16 ± 2 M⊙ for the primary and the secondary, respectively. Regular spectral monitoring is required in the future to detect RV variations of the WR star that would prove that it is gravitationally bound to the close O+OB system and to determine its mass.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".