MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1686223161 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20034203

Analysis of<i>α</i> Centauri AB including seismic constraints

2004· article· en· W1686223161 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMetallicityStarsInterferometryStellar evolutionComputational astrophysicsHeliumComponent (thermodynamics)Systematic error

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detailed models of α Cen A and B based on new seismological data for α Cen B by Carrier & Bourban ([CITE]) have been computed using the Geneva evolution code including atomic diffusion. Taking into account the numerous observational constraints now available for the α Cen system, we find a stellar model which is in good agreement with the astrometric, photometric, spectroscopic and asteroseismic data. The global parameters of the α Cen system are now firmly constrained to an age of Gyr, an initial helium mass fraction and an initial metallicity . Thanks to these numerous observational constraints, we confirm that the mixing-length parameter α of the B component is larger than the one of the A component, as already suggested by many authors (Noels et al. [CITE]; Fernandes & Neuforge [CITE]; Guenther & Demarque [CITE]): is about 8% larger than ( and ). Moreover, we show that asteroseismic measurements enable to determine the radii of both stars with a very high precision (errors smaller than 0.3%). The radii deduced from seismological data are compatible with the new interferometric results of Kervella et al. ([CITE]) even if they are slightly larger than the interferometric radii (differences smaller than 1%).

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.243
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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.

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

Citations105
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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