MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967608735 · doi:10.1086/342677

The 7.5 Magnitude Limit Sample of Bright Short‐Period Binary Stars. I. How Many Contact Binaries Are There?

2002· article· en· W1967608735 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePublications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBinary numberStarsContact binaryLimit (mathematics)Magnitude (astronomy)Sample (material)PopulationBinary star

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A sample of bright contact binary stars (W UMa-type or EW, and related: with beta Lyr light curves, EB, and ellipsoidal, ELL - in effect, all but the detached, EA), to the limit of Vmax = 7.5 magnitude is deemed to include all discoverable short-period (P<1 days) binaries with photometric variation larger than about 0.05 magnitude. Of the 32 systems in the final sample, 11 systems have been discovered by the Hipparcos satellite. The combined spatial density is evaluated at (1.02+/-0.24)x10^-5 pc^-3. The Relative Frequency of Occurrence (RFO), defined in relation to the Main Sequence stars, depends on the luminosity. An assumption of RFO~1/500 for MV>+1.5 is consistent with the data, although the number statistics is poor with the resulting uncertainty in the spatial density and the RFO by a factor of about two. The RFO rapidly decreases for brighter binaries to a level of 1/5,000 for MV<+1.5 and to 1/30,000 for MV<+0.5. The high RFO of 1/130, previously determined from the deep OGLE-I sample of Disk Population W UMa-type systems towards Baade's Window, is inconsistent with and unconfirmed by the new results. Possible reasons for the large discrepancy are discussed. They include several observational effects, but also a possibility of a genuine increase in the contact-binary density in the central parts of the Galaxy.

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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.490

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations65
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublications of the Astronomical Society of the PacificSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207