MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2101201386 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/789/2/155

THE DISK AROUND THE BROWN DWARF KPNO TAU 3

2014· article· en· W2101201386 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccretion discBrown dwarfAccretion (finance)Low MassHigh mass

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present submillimeter observations of the young brown dwarfs KPNO Tau 1, KPNO Tau 3, and KPNO Tau 6 at 450 μm and 850 μm taken with the Submillimetre Common-User Bolometer Array on the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope. KPNO Tau 3 and KPNO Tau 6 have been previously identified as Class II objects hosting accretion disks, whereas KPNO Tau 1 has been identified as a Class III object and shows no evidence of circumsubstellar material. Our 3σ detection of cold dust around KPNO Tau 3 implies a total disk mass of (4.0 ± 1.1) × 10 −4 M ☉ (assuming a gas to dust ratio of 100:1). We place tight constraints on any disks around KPNO Tau 1 or KPNO Tau 6 of <2.1 × 10 −4 M ☉ and <2.7 × 10 −4 M ☉ , respectively. Modeling the spectral energy distribution of KPNO Tau 3 and its disk suggests the disk properties (geometry, dust mass, and grain size distribution) are consistent with observations of other brown dwarf disks and low-mass T-Tauri stars. In particular, the disk-to-host mass ratio for KPNO Tau 3 is congruent with the scenario that at least some brown dwarfs form via the same mechanism as low-mass 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 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies→French-language works237,207→