MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2050203479 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20010957

<i>Research Note</i>: What can HST-GHRS Fe II observations of $\mathsf{\alpha}$ Orionis (M2 Iab)tell us about short-period heating?

2001· article· en· W2050203479 on OpenAlexaff
M. Cuntz, G. M. Harper, P. D. Bennett

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
FundersSpace Telescope Science InstituteNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsChromosphereAstrophysicsOutflowLine (geometry)Emission spectrumOpacitySpectral lineInterpretation (philosophy)H-alphaAstronomyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cuntz ([CITE]) suggested that apparent velocity shifts in Fe II emission lines observed in Betelgeuse (α Orionis: M2 Iab) indicate that non-magnetic wave modes are relevant for the heating and dynamics of α Ori's chromosphere. This claim was based on the similarity of computed stochastic velocities in 1-D short-period acoustic wave models and velocity shifts in profile fits to Fe II emission lines (Carpenter & Robinson [CITE]), which is now identified as coincidental. While acoustic waves may indeed be important for the heating and dynamics of α Ori's chromosphere, the interpretation of the Fe II emission line profiles does not provide evidence for this possibility. The line formation of optically thick scattering lines in an extended outflow makes Fe II emission lines poorly suited as a diagnostic for small-scale structure in hydrodynamical models. Better diagnostics include electron density sensitive, low opacity lines such as C II] . In the view of these findings, we discuss directions of future research.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.005

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and Astrophysics→Same topicAstro and Planetary Science→French-language works237,207→