MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Hydrogen in the atmosphere of the evolved WN3 Wolf-Rayet star WR 3: defying an evolutionary paradigm?

2004· article· en· W2041882640 on OpenAlexaff
С. В. Марченко, A. F. J. Moffat, P. A. Crowther, André-Nicolas Chené, M. De Serres, P. Eenens, Grant M. Hill, J. M. Moran, T. Morel

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsWolf–Rayet starAstrophysicsLarge Magellanic CloudPhotometry (optics)O-type starGalaxyAstronomyStarsStar formationSky

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

WR 3 is the brightest very early-type WN star in the sky. Based on several years of time-resolved spectroscopy and precision photometry on various time-scales, we deduce that WR 3 is most likely a single, weak-lined star of type WN3ha (contrary to its current catalogue-type of WN3 + O4), with H lines occurring both in emission and absorption in its wind. This conclusion is confirmed and strengthened via detailed modelling of the spectrum of WR 3. Given the similarity of WR 3 with numerous H-rich WNE stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud and especially the Small Magellanic Cloud, and its location towards the metal-deficient exterior of the Galaxy, we conclude that rotationally induced meridional circulation probably led to the apparently unusual formation of this hot Galactic WN star with enhanced hydrogen. Although we cannot completely rule out the possibility of a binary with a low orbital inclination and/or long period, we regard this latter possibility as highly unlikely.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.194 · 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→