Lessons from the High-resolution Spectroscopy of AW UMa and ϵ CrA: Is the Lucy Model Valid?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A re-examination of high-resolution spectral monitoring of the W UMa–type binaries AW UMa and ϵ CrA casts doubt on the widely utilized L. B. Lucy model of contact binaries. The detection of the very faint profile of the secondary component in AW UMa leads to a new spectroscopic determination of the mass ratio, q sp = 0.092 ± 0.007, which is close to the previous, medium-resolution spectroscopic result of T. Pribulla & S. M. Rucinski, q sp = 0.101 ± 0.006, and remains substantially different from a cluster of generally accepted photometric results by several authors, concentrated around q ph = 0.080 ± 0.005. A survey of binaries with the best-determined values of the mass ratio shows a common tendency for q ph < q sp. The tendency for systematically smaller values of q ph may result from the overfilling of the primary lobe and underfilling of the secondary lobe relative to the Roche model geometry, as predicted by the K. Stȩpień model. Despite the observed moderate inter-systemic velocities, the photometric Lucy model may remain useful in providing approximate, though biased, results for the mass ratio. A complicating factor in detailed spectral analysis may be the occurrence of Enhanced Spectral-line Perturbations (ESPs) projected over the secondary profiles, appearing in different numbers in the two studied binaries. The ESPs are tentatively identified within the Stȩpień model as collision fronts or fountains of primary-component gas from the circumbinary, energy-carrying flow.
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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".