A small survey of the magnetic fields of planet-host stars★
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using spectropolarimetry, we investigate the large-scale magnetic topologies of stars hosting close-in exoplanets. A small survey of 10 stars has been done with the twin instruments Télescope Bernard Lyot /NARVAL and Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope/ESPaDOnS between 2006 and 2011. Each target consists of circular polarization observations covering 7–22 d. For each of the seven targets in which a magnetic field was detected, we reconstructed the magnetic field topology using Zeeman–Doppler imaging. Otherwise, a detection limit has been estimated. Three new epochs of observations of τ Boo are presented, which confirm magnetic polarity reversal. We estimate that the cycle period is 2 yr, but recall that a shorter period of 240 d cannot still be ruled out. The result of our survey is compared to the global picture of stellar magnetic field properties in the mass–rotation diagram. The comparison shows that these giant planet-host stars tend to have similar magnetic field topologies to stars without detected hot Jupiters. This needs to be confirmed with a larger sample of stars.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".