MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W159548721 · doi:10.1017/s0252921100017073

Pulsating Red Giants: New Results

2002· article· en· W159548721 on OpenAlexafffund
John R. Percy, Akos G. Bakos, H. Dunlop, Ajaz Hussain, L. Kassim, R. Kastrukoff, Z. Nyssa, Joseph B. Wilson, Gregory W. Henry

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Astronomical Union Colloquium · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAmplitudePhotometry (optics)StarsMagnitude (astronomy)PhysicsOvertoneAstrophysicsAutocorrelationWaveletLight curvePhotoelectric effectAbsolute magnitudeAstronomyRed giantStatisticsMathematicsSpectral lineOpticsArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We have (1) accumulated long-term (up to 15 years) photoelectric photometry of 76 bright pulsating red giants (PRGs) and related stars, with V amplitudes of 0.04 to ≥ 1 magnitude; (2) used a variety of techniques, including autocorrelation, to determine both “short” radial pulsation periods, and long secondary periods; (3) determined pulsation modes using the Q-value method; the modes range from fundamental to second overtone, independent of temperature; (4) tested wavelet analysis on small-amplitude PRGs; (5) made a special study of PRGs with amplitudes less than 0.1 magnitude; and (6) called further attention to the problem of the long secondary periods of these stars. Our studies provide a “model” for the analysis and interpretation of larger, fainter surveys such as MACHO and OGLE.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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)0.0040.000

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 head0.232
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Astronomical Union ColloquiumSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207