MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1486755000 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527276

Three irradiated and bloated hot Jupiters:

2015· article· en· W1486755000 on OpenAlexaff
R. G. West, C. Hellier, J. M. Almenara, D. R. Anderson, S. C. C. Barros, F. Bouchy, D. J. A. Brown, A. Collier Cameron, M. Deleuil, L. Delrez, A. P. Doyle, F. Faedi, A. Fumel, M. Gillon, Y. Gómez Maqueo Chew, G. Hébrard, E. Jehin, M. Lendl, P. F. L. Maxted, F. Pepe, D. Pollacco, D. Queloz, D. Sègransan, B. Smalley, A. M. S. Smith, J. Southworth, A. H. M. J. Triaud, S. Udry

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersInstituto de Astrofísica de CanariasFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSScience and Technology Facilities CouncilSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsHot JupiterPlanetPhysicsPhotometry (optics)AstronomyStarsAstrophysicsOrbit (dynamics)Exoplanet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on three new transiting hot Jupiter planets, discovered from the WASP surveys, which we combine with radial velocities from OHP/SOPHIE and Euler/CORALIE and photometry from Euler and TRAPPIST. The planets WASP-76b, WASP-82b, and WASP-90b are all inflated, with radii of 1.7-1.8 R Jup . All three orbit hot stars, of type F5-F7, with orbits of 1.8-3.9 d, and all three stars have evolved, post-main-sequence radii (1.7-2.2 R ). Thus the three planets fit a known trend of hot Jupiters that receive high levels of irradiation being highly inflated. We caution, though, about the presence of a selection effect, in that non-inflated planets around 2 R post-MS stars can often produce transits too shallow to be detected by the ground-based surveys that have found the majority of transiting hot Jupiters.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.191 · 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.

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

Citations131
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207