MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1983396308 · doi:10.1134/s1063773709060061

Search for evolutionary changes in Cepheid periods using the Harvard plate collection: RS Puppis

2009· article· en· W1983396308 on OpenAlexaff
Л. Н. Бердников, A. A. Henden, D. G. Turner, Ε. N. Pastukhova

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy Letters · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsCepheid variableAstrophysicsAmplitudeInstability stripDiagramParabolaPeriod (music)Interval (graph theory)ObservatoryCombinatoricsStatisticsOpticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on photographic plates from the Harvard College Observatory, we have made 1492 magnitude estimates for the long-period classical Cepheid RS Pup $$ (P = 41\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{d} 4) $$ . Together with the observations taken from the literature, our data have allowed us to construct an O-C diagram spanning a time interval of 135 years. The O-C diagram has the shape of a parabola, which has made it possible to determine for the first time the quadratic light elements and to calculate the rate of evolutionary increase in the period, $$ \dot P $$ = 119.3 (±3.0) s yr−1, in agreement with the results of theoretical calculations for the third crossing of the instability strip. The available data reduced by the method of Eddington and Plakidis (1929) have revealed random fluctuations in the period of ∼ $$ 0\underset{\raise0.3em\hbox{$\smash{\scriptscriptstyle\cdot}$}}{d} 225 $$ . However, they do not dominate on the O-C diagram, because the progressive evolutionary changes in the period in a 135-year interval lead to an amplitude of the evolutionary changes in the O-C residuals that exceeds the amplitude of the random fluctuations in the O-C residuals by a factor of 3.

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 score0.066
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations23
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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