Bibliographic record
Abstract
New radii, derived from a modified version of the Baade-Wesselink (BW) method that is tied to published KHG narrowband spectrophotometry, are presented for 13 bright Cepheids. The data yield a best-fitting period-radius relation given by log ⟨ R / R ⊙ ⟩ = 1.071(±0.025) + 0.747(±0.028) log P 0 . In combination with other high-quality radius estimates recently published by Laney & Stobie, the new data yield a period-radius relation described by log ⟨ R / R ⊙ ⟩ = 1.064(±0.0006) + 0.750(±0.006) log P 0 , which simplifies to ⟨ R ⟩ ∝ P 3/4 . The relationship is used to test the scale of Cepheid luminosities inferred from cluster zero-age main-sequence (ZAMS) fitting, for which we present an updated list of calibrating Cepheids located in stellar groups. The cluster ZAMS-fitting distance scale tied to a Pleiades distance modulus of 5.56 is found to agree closely with the distance scale defined by Hipparcos parallaxes of cluster Cepheids and also yields Cepheid luminosities that are a good match to those inferred from the period-radius relation. The mean difference between absolute visual magnitudes based on cluster ZAMS fitting, ⟨ M V ⟩ C , and those inferred for 23 cluster Cepheids from radius and effective temperature estimates, ⟨ M V ⟩ BW , in the sense of C - BW is +0.019 ± 0.029 s.e. There is no evidence to indicate the need for a major revision to the Cepheid cluster distance scale. The absolute magnitude differences are examined using available [Fe/H] data for the cluster Cepheid sample to test the metallicity dependence of the period-luminosity relation. Large scatter and a small range of metallicities hinder a reliable estimate of the exact relationship, although the data are fairly consistent with predictions from stellar evolutionary models. The derived dependence is Δ M V ( C - BW) = +0.06(±0.03) - 0.43(±0.54)[ Fe/H].
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".