MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040505548 · doi:10.1086/427838

The Period Changes of Polaris

2005· article· en· W2040505548 on OpenAlexaff
D. G. Turner, Jonathan Savoy, Jayme Derrah, Mohamed Abdel‐Sabour Abdel‐Latif, Л. Н. Бердников

Bibliographic record

VenuePublications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCepheid variableInstability stripAstrophysicsPhysicsPhotometry (optics)AmplitudeHiatusInstabilityAstronomyRADIUSStarsGeologyOpticsMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolutionary changes in pulsation period for the Cepheid Polaris are reinvestigated using archival observational material (radial velocities, photometry, and eye observations) over the interval 1844 to the present, including new photometry for the star obtained in 2003–2004. The star's pulsation period increased at a rate of 4.5 s yr−1 during that interval, with the exception of a brief hiatus between 1963 and 1966, when it suddenly decreased, possibly as a result of a brief reduction in average stellar radius amounting to −0.055%. At roughly the same time, the pulsation amplitude of Polaris underwent a marked change. Prior to 1963 the V amplitude was in excess of about 0.1 mag, possibly decreasing at a rate of 0.019 mag century−1. Following the hiatus of 1963–1966, the pulsation amplitude underwent a sharp decline and now appears to be erratic on a cycle‐to‐cycle basis, always smaller than 0.05 mag. The rapid rate of period increase for Polaris is consistent with a first crossing of the Cepheid instability strip, while the hiatus of 1963–1966 and sudden decrease in pulsation amplitude thereafter suggest that the star may have left the instability strip for first crossers at that time, leaving it near the center of the instability strip for Cepheids in higher crossing modes.

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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations54
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublications of the Astronomical Society of the PacificSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207