MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2094195431 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/704/2/1098

NEAR-INFRARED OBSERVATIONS OF GQ LUP b USING THE GEMINI INTEGRAL FIELD SPECTROGRAPH NIFS

2009· article· en· W2094195431 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsUniversity of TorontoUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntegral field spectrographSpectrographLuminositySpectral lineSpectroscopyEffective temperatureSurface gravityStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present new JHK spectroscopy (R ~ 5000) of GQ Lup b, acquired with the near-infrared integral field spectrograph NIFS and the adaptive optics system ALTAIR at the Gemini North telescope. Angular differential imaging was used in the J and H bands to suppress the speckle noise from GQ Lup A; we show that this approach can provide improvements in signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) by a factor of 2 - 6 for companions located at subarcsecond separations. Based on high quality observations and GAIA synthetic spectra, we estimate the companion effective temperature to Teff = 2400 +/- 100 K, its gravity to log g = 4.0 +/- 0.5, and its luminosity to log(L/L_s) = -2.47 +/- 0.28. Comparisons with the predictions of the DUSTY evolutionary tracks allow us to constrain the mass of GQ Lup b to 8 - 60 MJup, most likely in the brown dwarf regime. Compared with the spectra published by Seifahrt and collaborators, our spectra of GQ Lup b are significantly redder (by 15 - 50%) and do not show important Pa\beta emission. Our spectra are in excellent agreement with the lower S/N spectra previously published by McElwain and collaborators.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations26
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207