MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2019546817 · doi:10.1086/342473

A Survey for Pulsating Hot B Subdwarfs in the Northern Hemisphere

2002· article· en· W2019546817 on OpenAlexaff
M. Billeres, G. Fontaine, P. Brassard, James Liebert

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsSubdwarfAstrophysicsStarsLight curveLuminosityInstability stripBrightnessApparent magnitudeAstronomyWhite dwarfHertzsprung–Russell diagramAmplitudeStellar evolutionGalaxyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present the final results of a survey to search for pulsating hot B subdwarf (sdB) stars. We picked our candidates on the basis of their values of T eff and log g , as estimated from available quantitative optical spectroscopy. With the help of a three-channel photometer, we gathered "white-light" light curves using a uniform sampling time of 10 s for a total of 74 stars. Our survey had a yield of ~5.4%, leading to the discovery of detectable luminosity variations in four objects: PG 1047+003, KPD 2109+4401, KPD 1930+2752, and PG 0014+067. For the light curves of the other 70 stars, we derive upper limits on the amplitudes of possible periodic signals (in the period window 20-1000 s) that range from ~0.05% of the mean brightness of the star at an apparent magnitude of y ~ 12 to ~0.20% at y ~ 15. We use our survey results as well as those of others to discuss the location and extent of the empirical instability "strip" for pulsating sdB stars in the log g - T eff diagram. We also address the question of the coexistence of pulsators and nonvariable stars in the same region of that diagram.

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)0.000
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations30
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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