MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074948395 · doi:10.1086/301580

The Puzzle of HD 104994 (WR 46)

2000· article· en· W2074948395 on OpenAlexaff
С. В. Марченко, J. I. Arias, R. H. Barbá, L. A. Balona, A. F. J. Moffat, Virpi Sinikka Niemelä, Michael M. Shara, C. Sterken

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsCanada Council for the ArtsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsWolf–Rayet starAstrophysicsIonizationRadial velocityFlux (metallurgy)Binary numberExcitationEmission spectrumOrbital motionLine (geometry)AstronomySpectral lineClassical mechanicsStarsQuantum mechanicsIonAngular momentumGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intense coordinated spectroscopic and photometric monitoring of the suspected Wolf-Rayet binary WR 46 in 1999 reveals clear periodic variations, P = 0.329 ± 0.013 days, in the radial velocities of the emission lines of highest ionization potential, O VI and N V, found deepest in the Wolf-Rayet wind and thus least likely to be perturbed by a companion. These are accompanied by coherent variability in the profiles of lines with lower ionization/excitation potential and in the continuum flux. Most probably originating from orbital motion of the Wolf-Rayet component of the binary, this periodic radial velocity signal disappears from time to time, thus creating a puzzle yet to be solved. We show that the entangled patterns of the line profile variability are mainly governed by transitions between high and low states of the system's continuum flux.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations18
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207