MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2006707139 · doi:10.1086/587615

Radial and Nonradial Oscillation Modes in Rapidly Rotating Stars

2008· article· en· W2006707139 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine Lovekin, R. G. Deupree

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEigenfunctionSpherical harmonicsPhysicsPerturbation (astronomy)HarmonicsRotation (mathematics)Oscillation (cell signaling)StarsAngular velocityClassical mechanicsWavenumberMechanicsAstrophysicsEigenvalues and eigenvectorsOpticsGeometryMathematicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We use two-dimensional stellar models and a two-dimensional finite difference integration of the linearized pulsation equations to calculate nonradial oscillations. This approach allows us to directly calculate the pulsation modes for a distorted rotating star without treating the rotation as a perturbation. We are also able to express the finite difference solution in the horizontal direction as a sum of multiple spherical harmonics for any given mode. Using these methods, we have investigated the effects of increasing rotation and the number of spherical harmonics on the calculated eigenfrequencies and eigenfunctions and compared the results to perturbation theory. We use 10 M ☉ models with velocities ranging from 0 to 420 km s −1 (0.89Ω c ) and examine low-order p -modes. We find that one spherical harmonic remains reasonable up to a rotation rate around 300 km s −1 (0.69Ω c ) for the radial fundamental mode, but can fail at rotation rates as low as 90 km s −1 (0.23Ω c ) for the l = 2 p 2 mode, based on the eigenfrequencies alone. Depending on the mode in question, a single spherical harmonic may fail at lower rotation rates if the shape of the eigenfunction is taken into consideration. Perturbation theory, in contrast, remains valid up to relatively high rotation rates for most modes. We find the lowest failure surface equatorial velocity is 120 km s −1 (0.30Ω c ) for the l = 2 p 2 mode, but failure velocities between 240 and 300 km s −1 (0.58Ω c –0.69Ω c ) are more typical.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations56
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→