MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060756386 · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/742/2/l24

55 CANCRI: A COPLANAR PLANETARY SYSTEM THAT IS LIKELY MISALIGNED WITH ITS STAR

2011· article· en· W2060756386 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan A. Kaib, Sean N. Raymond, Martin J. Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsPlanetPlanetary systemTransit (satellite)Orbit (dynamics)IsotropyEquatorStar (game theory)AstrophysicsBinary numberAstronomyLatitudeOpticsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the 55 Cnc system contains multiple, closely packed planets that are presumably in a coplanar configuration, we use numerical simulations to demonstrate that they are likely to be highly inclined to their parent star's spin axis. Due to perturbations from its distant binary companion, this planetary system precesses like a rigid body about its parent star. Consequently, the parent star's spin axis and the planetary orbit normal likely diverged long ago. Because only the projected separation of the binary is known, we study this effect statistically, assuming an isotropic distribution for wide binary orbits. We find that the most likely projected spin–orbit angle is ∼50°, with a ∼30% chance of a retrograde configuration. Transit observations of the innermost planet—55 Cnc e—may be used to verify these findings via the Rossiter–McLaughlin effect. 55 Cancri may thus represent a new class of planetary systems with well-ordered, coplanar orbits that are inclined with respect to the stellar equator.

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)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.164 · 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

Citations47
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207