MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1971446808 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/2/1534

PHOTOMETRIC VARIABILITY OF THE T2.5 BROWN DWARF SIMP J013656.5+093347: EVIDENCE FOR EVOLVING WEATHER PATTERNS

2009· article· en· W1971446808 on OpenAlexaff
Étienne Artigau, Sandie Bouchard, René Doyon, David Lafreniére

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of TorontoUniversité de MontréalCentre for Research in Astrophysics of QuébecUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrown dwarfPhotometry (optics)Light curveAmplitudeAstrophysicsPhysicsRotation periodDwarf planetAstronomyPlanetOpticsStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the discovery of a photometric variability in the bright T2.5 brown dwarf SIMP J013656.5+093347. Continuous J-band photometry has been obtained for several hours on four different nights. The light curves show a periodic modulation with a period of ~2.4 hours, a peak-to-peak amplitude of ~50 mmag and significant night-to-night evolution. We suggest that the light curve modulation is due to the brown dwarf's rotation and that the longer term variations come from surface features evolution and/or differential rotation. We obtained complementary observations over a single night in the J and Ks bands; the object displays correlated photometric variability in both bands, albeit with smaller Ks-band amplitude. The ratio of the Ks and J variability amplitudes puts strong constraints on the physical mechanisms at play. Based on theoretical models of brown dwarf atmospheres, our results suggest that the atmosphere of SIMP0136 is comprised of both grain-free and colder (by ~100 K) grain-bearing cloudy regions. This discovery, and its interpretation, provide a natural explanation of the so-called J-band brightening.

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)0.001
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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations268
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207