Achievements and Challenges in the Field of sdB Asteroseismology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We review briefly the status of sdB star asteroseismology. We concentrate on the main achievements that have been obtained so far, and we discuss the current challenges that we now face in the field. 1. Current Census and Survey Work Since the initial serendipitous discovery of the first pulsating sdB star EC 14026− 2647 as reported by Kilkenny et al. (1997), immense progress has been made in terms of uncovering additional pulsators. Indeed, ongoing survey work – essentially broadband fast photometry – carried out by several groups in the last decade has so far revealed the existence of at least 34 stars of the EC 14026−2647 type. These are characterized by low-amplitude, multi-periodic, short-period (80−600 s) luminosity variations that are due to low-order and low-degree p-mode oscillations. A second family of pulsating sdB stars was discovered more recently as reported by Green et al. (2003). These are again low-amplitude, multi-periodic pulsators, but with much longer periods (in the range of 2000 to 9000 s), implying the presence of high-order and low-degree g-modes. A total of 31 confirmed pulsators of the kind is now known, after the prototype PG 1716+426. Quite interestingly, three objects identified initially as short-period pulsators of the EC 14026−2647 kind have also been found to exhibit as well long-period oscillations and, thus, represent a hybrid type. These are Balloon 090100001 (Oreiro et al. 2005; Baran et al. 2005), HS 0702+6043 (Schuh et al. 2006), and HS 2201+2610 (Lutz et al., these proceedings). Needless to say, these three EC 14026−2647/PG 1716+426 hybrid pulsators deserve particular attention.
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 | 0.023 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.007 |
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".