VERIFICATION OF THE KEPLER INPUT CATALOG FROM ASTEROSEISMOLOGY OF SOLAR-TYPE STARS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We calculate precise stellar radii and surface gravities from the asteroseismic analysis of over 500 solar-type pulsating stars observed by the Kepler space telescope. These physical stellar properties are compared with those given in the Kepler Input Catalog (KIC), determined from ground-based multi-color photometry. For the stars in our sample, we find general agreement but we detect an average overestimation bias of 0.23 dex in the KIC determination of log ( g ) for stars with log ( g ) KIC > 4.0 dex, and a resultant underestimation bias of up to 50% in the KIC radii estimates for stars with R KIC < 2 R ☉ . Part of the difference may arise from selection bias in the asteroseismic sample; nevertheless, this result implies there may be fewer stars characterized in the KIC with R ∼ 1 R ☉ than is suggested by the physical properties in the KIC. Furthermore, if the radius estimates are taken from the KIC for these affected stars and then used to calculate the size of transiting planets, a similar underestimation bias may be applied to the planetary radii.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
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".