MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101271311 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201322670

Anchors for the cosmic distance scale: the Cepheids U Sagittarii, CF Cassiopeiae, and CEab Cassiopeiae

2013· article· en· W2101271311 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsDominion Astrophysical ObservatorySaint Mary's UniversityMount Saint Vincent University
FundersUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillUniversity of California, Los AngelesJet Propulsion LaboratoryMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e InovaçãoCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationCalifornia Institute of TechnologyRussian Foundation for Basic ResearchAarhus UniversitetMichigan State University
KeywordsCepheid variableCOSMIC cancer databaseBinary numberHertzsprung–Russell diagramStar (game theory)Binary star

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New and existing X-ray, UBVJHKsW(1 − 4), and spectroscopic observations were analyzed to constrain fundamental parameters for M 25, NGC 7790, and dust along their sight-lines. The star clusters are of particular importance because they host the classical Cepheids U Sgr, CF Cas, and the visual binary Cepheids CEa and CEb Cas. Precise results from the multiband analysis, in tandem with a comprehensive determination of the Cepheids’ period evolution (dP/dt) from ~140 years of observations, helped to resolve concerns raised regarding the clusters and their key Cepheid constituents. Specifically, the distances derived for members of M 25 and NGC 7790 are 630 ± 25 pc and 3.40 ± 0.15 kpc, respectively.

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)0.004
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.002

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 head0.239
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations19
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207