MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080178040 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/146/2/29

ROTATION OF THE K3 II-III GIANT STAR α HYDRA

2013· article· en· W2080178040 on OpenAlexaff
David F. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsRotation (mathematics)StarsAstrophysicsStellar rotationStar (game theory)ThermalFourier transformMeasure (data warehouse)GeometryThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fundamental spectroscopic determination of projected rotation rates of slowly rotating stars is challenging because the rotational broadening of the spectral lines is often comparable to, or smaller than, the broadening from other sources, most notably macroturbulence. Fourier techniques have the advantage over direct profile matching when the observed profiles are complete, but when the profiles are severely blended, the Fourier analysis is compromised. A process of modeling partial profiles for determining the rotation rate for stars having blended spectral lines is investigated and applied to the evolved star α Hya (K3 II–III). Projected rotation higher than 5 km s −1 can be definitively ruled out for this star. Not all lines are equally good, depending on the amount of blending and also depending on the strength of the line, as the balance between the thermal and non-thermal components changes. A modest ambiguity arises between macroturbulence and rotational broadening, but a careful look at the differences between the observations and the models allows one to measure the rotation with acceptable precision. The result for α Hya is v sin i = 2.6 ± 0.3 km s −1 .

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)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations11
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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