MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Accurate fundamental parameters for 23 bright solar-type stars

2010· article· en· W2095998286 on OpenAlexaff
H. Bruntt, T. R. Bedding, Pierre-Olivier Quirion, G. Lo Curto, F. Carrier, B. Smalley, T. H. Dall, T. Arentoft, M. Bazot, R. Paul Butler

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Space Agency
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsPhysicsAsteroseismologyStarsAstrophysicsEffective temperatureSurface gravityLuminositySpectroscopyMicroturbulenceRADIUSCalibrationSolar massAstronomyGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We combine results from interferometry, asteroseismology and spectroscopy to determine accurate fundamental parameters of 23 bright solar-type stars, from spectral type F5 to K2 and luminosity classes III–V. For some stars we can use direct techniques to determine the mass, radius, luminosity and effective temperature, and we compare with indirect methods that rely on photometric calibrations or spectroscopic analyses. We use the asteroseismic information available in the literature to infer an indirect mass with an accuracy of 4–15 per cent. From indirect methods we determine luminosity and radius to 3 per cent. We find evidence that the luminosity from the indirect method is slightly overestimated (≈ 5 per cent) for the coolest stars, indicating that their bolometric corrections (BCs) are too negative. For <it>T</it><inf>eff</inf> we find a slight offset of −40 ± 20 K between the spectroscopic method and the direct method, meaning the spectroscopic temperatures are too high. From the spectroscopic analysis we determine the detailed chemical composition for 13 elements, including Li, C and O. The metallicity ranges from [Fe/H]=−1.7 to +0.4, and there is clear evidence for α-element enhancement in the metal-poor stars. We find no significant offset between the spectroscopic surface gravity and the value from combining asteroseismology with radius estimates. From the spectroscopy we also determine <it>v</it> sin <it>i</it> and we present a new calibration of macroturbulence and microturbulence. From the comparison between the results from the direct and spectroscopic methods we claim that we can determine <it>T</it><inf>eff</inf>, log <it>g</it> and [Fe/H] with absolute accuracies of 80 K, 0.08 and 0.07 dex. Photometric calibrations of Strömgren indices provide accurate results for <it>T</it><inf>eff</inf> and [Fe/H] but will be more uncertain for distant stars when interstellar reddening becomes important. The indirect methods are important to obtain reliable estimates of the fundamental parameters of relatively faint stars when interferometry cannot be used. This paper is the first to compare direct and indirect methods for a large sample of stars, and we conclude that indirect methods are valid, although slight corrections may be needed.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 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

Citations234
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical SocietySame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207