MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013904996 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/140/2/328

HIGH-AMPLITUDE δ-SCUTIS IN THE LARGE MAGELLANIC CLOUD

2010· article· en· W2013904996 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryFondo de Financiamiento de Centros de Investigación en Áreas PrioritariasNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science FoundationJames S. McDonnell FoundationU.S. Department of EnergySpace Telescope Science InstituteHarvard University
KeywordsOvertoneLarge Magellanic CloudAmplitudeInstability stripPopulationStarsCepheid variableInstability

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present 2323 high-amplitude δ-Scuti (HADS) candidates discovered in the Large Magellanic Cloud by the SuperMACHO survey (Rest et al.). Frequency analyses of these candidates reveal that several are multimode pulsators, including 119 whose largest amplitude of pulsation is in the fundamental (F) mode and 19 whose largest amplitude of pulsation is in the first overtone (FO) mode. Using Fourier decomposition of the HADS light curves, we find that the period–luminosity (PL) relation defined by the FO pulsators does not show a clear separation from the PL relation defined by the F pulsators. This differs from other instability strip pulsators such as type c RR Lyrae. We also present evidence for a larger amplitude, subluminous population of HADS similar to that observed in Fornax.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.224
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

Citations21
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207