MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2042880634 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stu1304

A stable quasi-periodic 4.18-d oscillation and mysterious occultations in the 2011 MOST light-curve of TW Hya

2014· article· en· W2042880634 on OpenAlexaff
M. Siwak, S. M. Ruciński, J. M. Matthews, R. Kuschnig, A. F. J. Moffat, Jason F. Rowe, Dimitar Sasselov, W. W. Weiß

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalSaint Mary's UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsLight curveBrightnessAccretion (finance)AstrophysicsOscillation (cell signaling)FunnelAstronomyStarspot

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an analysis of the 2011 photometric observations of TW Hya by the MOST satellite; this is the fourth continuous series of this type. The large-scale light variations are dominated by a strong, quasi-periodic 4.18-d oscillation with superimposed, apparently chaotic flaring activity. The former is probably produced by stellar rotation with one large hotspot created by a stable accretion funnel, while the latter may be produced by small hotspots, created at moderate latitudes by unstable accretion tongues. A new, previously unnoticed feature is a series of semiperiodic, well-defined brightness dips of unknown nature, of which 19 were observed during 43 d of our nearly continuous observations. Re-analysis of the 2009 MOST light-curve revealed the presence of three similar dips. On the basis of recent theoretical results, we tentatively conclude that the dips may represent occultations of the small hotspots created by unstable accretion tongues by hypothetical optically thick clumps of dust.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies→French-language works237,207→