MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015058398 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/726/2/113

TWO WIDE PLANETARY-MASS COMPANIONS TO SOLAR-TYPE STARS IN UPPER SCORPIUS

2010· article· en· W2015058398 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrown dwarfStarsBinary numberPlanetBinary starCircumbinary planetPrimary (astronomy)Solar mass

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At wide separations, planetary-mass and brown dwarf companions to solar-type stars occupy a curious region of
\nparameter space not obviously linked to binary star formation or solar system scale planet formation. These
\ncompanions provide insight into the extreme case of companion formation (either binary or planetary), and
\ndue to their relative ease of observation when compared to close companions, they offer a useful template
\nfor our expectations of more typical planets. We present the results from an adaptive optics imaging survey
\nfor wide (~50–500 AU) companions to solar-type stars in Upper Scorpius. We report one new discovery of a
\n~14 M_J companion around GSC 06214−00210and confirm that the candidate planetary-mass companion 1RXS
\nJ160929.1−210524 detected by Lafrenière et al. is in fact comoving with its primary star. In our survey, these
\ntwo detections correspond to ~4% of solar-type stars having companions in the 6–20 M_J mass and ~200–500 AU
\nseparation range. This figure is higher than would be expected if brown dwarfs and planetary-mass companions
\nwere drawn from an extrapolation of the binary mass function. Finally, we discuss implications for the formation
\nof these objects.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations168
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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