MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020691487 · doi:10.1134/s1063772914040015

A search for evolutionary period variations of Cepheids using the Harvard plate stacks: FF Aql

2014· article· en· W2020691487 on OpenAlexaff
Л. Н. Бердников, D. G. Turner, A. A. Henden

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy Reports · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicLepidoptera: Biology and Taxonomy
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCepheid variablePhysicsInstability stripAstrophysicsBrightnessObservatoryAmplitudePeriod (music)DiagramParabolaQuintic functionAstronomyOpticsStarsStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Photographic plates of the Harvard Observatory stacks have been used to obtain 1261 brightness estimates for the low-amplitude Cepheid FF Aql ( P = 4.47 days). Combined with published visual, photoelectric, and CCD observations, these data enable the construction of an O-C diagram spanning 122 years. The resulting O-C diagram is parabola-shaped, enabling the determination of quadratic brightness elements for the first time. The evolutionary rate of increase of the period, dP/dt = 0.072 ± 0.011 s/year, is in agreement with theoretical computations for the third crossing of the instability strip. The available data, reduced using the technique of by Eddington and Plakidis, reveal the presence of small, random period fluctuations, ɛ = 0.0061 d ± 0.0044 d , that do not distort the evolutionary trend of the O-C residuals.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy ReportsSame topicLepidoptera: Biology and TaxonomyFrench-language works237,207