MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2006119475 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219112

The composite-spectrum binary hypothesis does not explain the<i>λ</i>Bootis stars

2012· article· en· W2006119475 on OpenAlexaff
R. E. M. Griffin, R. O. Gray, C. J. Corbally

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsDominion Astrophysical Observatory
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsStarsStellar classificationBinary numberStar (game theory)Binary starSpectral lineK-type main-sequence starLine (geometry)AstronomyT Tauri star

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The existence of the λ Boo type as a class of chemically-peculiar stars in its own right has taxed numerous researchers, and has challenged spectroscopists to produce a model which is plausible, comprehensive and predictive. Stars which are recognized as members of the λ Boo class have late-B to early-F spectral types, and exhibit (often substantially) low abundances of Fe-peak elements although elements such as C, N, O and S may have more nearly solar abundances. Since less than 2% of objects within the relevant spectral-type domain appear to be λ Boo stars their existence has demanded rather special conditions, and has triggered opinion that this group may not in fact exist but that each case can be explained as an unrecognized binary. In this paper we examine those claims by monitoring 10 stars, listed in the literature as possible λ Boo stars but said to be “likely candidates” for composite-spectrum binaries, by employing high-dispersion spectroscopy in an intermittent observing programme designed to reveal the sort of line-profile changes that should be detectable if each object were really a pair of similar stars in an SB2 system. We also monitor two other stars: HR 7903, said to be a binary (but is more like an Ap star), and λ Boo itself. The sample includes 1 possible, 1 marginal and 4 definite λ Boo classifications. In addition, we derive the physical properties of the 12 stars by photometric and spectroscopic synthesis, and measure their radial velocities. Three of the sample show small line-profile variations, but not of the sort that can be attributed to the presence of a companion star; they are the suspected Ap star HR 7903, HR 6878 (which exhibits spectrum peculiarities very similar to those of HR 7903 but has not previously been classified as Bp or Ap), and λ Aql, whose rapid spectrum variations resemble those observed in spotted or CP stars. None of the stars shows any evidence to suggest that it could be a composite-spectrum binary.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations15
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and Astrophysics→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→