Geometry of the Large Magellanic Cloud Disk: Results from MACHO and the Two Micron All Sky Survey
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a detailed study of the viewing angles and geometry of the inner LMC ( P 4) based on a sample of more than 2000 MACHO Cepheids with complete {VR} KC light curves and single-phase Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS) JHKs observations. The sample is considerably larger than any previously studied subset of LMC Cepheids and has an improved areal coverage. Single-epoch random-phase 2MASS photometry is corrected using MACHO V light curves to derive mean JHKs magnitudes. We analyze the resulting period-luminosity relations in VRJHKs to recover statistical reddening and distance to each individual Cepheid, with respect to the mean distance modulus and reddening of the LMC. By fitting a plane solution to the derived individual distance moduli, the values of LMC viewing angles are obtained: position angle 151:0 2:4, inclination i 30:7 1:1. In the so-called ring analysis, we find a strong dependence of the derived viewing angles on the adopted center of the LMC, which we interpret as being due to deviations from planar geometry. Analysis of residuals from the plane fit indicates the presence of a symmetric warp in the LMC disk and the bar elevated above the disk plane. Nonplanar geometry of the inner LMC explains a broad range for values of i and in the literature and suggests caution when deriving viewing angles from inner LMC data.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it