MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046192500 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/137/3/3655

RADIAL VELOCITY STUDIES OF CLOSE BINARY STARS. XV

2009· article· en· W2046192500 on OpenAlexaff
T. Pribulla, S. M. Ruciński, R. M. Blake, Wenxian Lu, James R. Thomson, Heide DeBond, Toomas Karmo, Archie de Ridder, W. Ogłoza, M. Siwak

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAstrophysicsPhysicsStarsContact binaryBinary numberRadial velocitySubdwarfBinary starObservatoryLight curveRotation (mathematics)SineStellar classificationSpectral lineAstronomyMathematicsGeometryWhite dwarf

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radial-velocity measurements and sine-curve fits to the orbital radial velocity variations are presented for the last eight close binary systems analyzed the same way as in the previous papers of this series: QX And, DY Cet, MR Del, HI Dra, DD Mon, V868 Mon, ER Ori, and Y Sex. For another seven systems (TT Cet, AA Cet, CW Lyn, V563 Lyr, CW Sge, LV Vir and MW Vir) phase coverage is insufficient to provide reliable orbits but radial velocities of individual components were measured. Observations of a few complicated systems observed throughout the DDO close-binary program are also presented; among them an especially interesting is the multiple system V857 Her which - in addition to the contact binary - very probably contains one or more sub-dwarf components of much earlier spectral type. All suspected binaries which were found to be most probably pulsating stars are briefly discussed in terms of mean radial velocities and projected rotation velocities (v sin i) as well as spectral type estimates. In two of them, CU CVn and V752 Mon, the broadening functions show a clear presence of non-radial pulsations. The previously missing spectral types for the DDO I paper are given here in addition to such estimates for most of the program stars of this paper.

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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations58
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207