MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988453421 · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/741/2/l27

NEW EVIDENCE SUPPORTING MEMBERSHIP FOR TW NOR IN LYNGÅ 6 AND THE CENTAURUS SPIRAL ARM

2011· article· en· W1988453421 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicHistory and Developments in Astronomy
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilCentro de Astrofísica y Tecnologías AfinesFondo de Financiamiento de Centros de Investigación en Áreas PrioritariasComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsCepheid variablePhotometry (optics)Spiral galaxySpiral (railway)Radial velocityStar cluster

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The putative association between the classical Cepheid TW Nor and the open cluster Lyngå 6 has generated considerable debate in the literature. New JHK s photometry in tandem with existing radial velocities for Lyngå 6 stars implies cluster membership for TW Nor and establishes the variable as a high-weight calibrator for classical Cepheid relations. Fundamental mean parameters determined for Lyngå 6 are: d = 1.91 ± 0.10 kpc, E ( J − H ) = 0.38 ± 0.02, and log τ = 7.9 ± 0.1. The Benedict et al./Turner Galactic VI c Wesenheit function was revised using TW Nor's new parameters: W VI , 0 = (− 3.37 ± 0.08)log P 0 − 2.48 ± 0.08. TW Nor/Lyngå 6 lie beyond the Sagittarius–Carina spiral arm and occupy the Centaurus arm, along with innumerable young Cepheids and clusters (e.g., VW Cen and VVV CL070).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicHistory and Developments in AstronomyFrench-language works237,207