MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972026773 · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/758/1/l2

NEW BROWN DWARF COMPANIONS TO YOUNG STARS IN SCORPIUS-CENTAURUS

2012· article· en· W1972026773 on OpenAlexaff
M. Janson, Ray Jayawardhana, J. H. Girard, David Lafreniére, M. Bonavita, John E. Gizis, A. Brandeker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrown dwarfStarsPhysicsPlanetProper motionAstrophysicsAstronomyLow Mass

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the discoveries of three faint companions to young stars in the Scorpius–Centaurus region, imaged with the NICI instrument on Gemini South. We have confirmed all three companions through common proper motion tests. Follow-up spectroscopy has confirmed two of them, HIP 65423 B and HIP 65517 B, to be brown dwarfs, while the third, HIP 72099 B, is more likely a very low mass star just above the hydrogen burning limit. The detection of wide companions in the mass range of ∼40–100 M jup complements previous work in the same region, reporting detections of similarly wide companions with lower masses, in the range of ∼10–30 M jup . Such low masses near the deuterium burning limit have raised the question of whether those objects formed like planets or stars. The existence of intermediate objects as reported here could represent a bridge between lower-mass companions and stellar companions, but in any case demonstrate that mass alone may not provide a clear-cut distinction for the formation of low-mass companions to stars.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations44
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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