MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104621178 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201117230

SuperWASP observations of pulsating Am stars

2011· article· en· W2104621178 on OpenAlexfundno aff
B. Smalley, D. W. Kurtz, A. M. S. Smith, L. Fossati, D. R. Anderson, S. C. C. Barros, O. W. Butters, A. Collier Cameron, D. J. Christian, B. Enoch, F. Faedi, C. A. Haswell, C. Hellier, S. Holmes, K. Horne, Stephen R. Kane, Tim Lister, P. F. L. Maxted, A. J. Norton, N. Parley, D. L. Pollacco, E. K. Simpson, I. Skillen, J. Southworth, R. A. Street, R. G. West, P. J. Wheatley, P. L. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University BelfastScience and Technology Facilities CouncilSpace Telescope Science InstituteNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsStarsPhysicsAstrophysicsAmplitudeAstronomyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have studied over 1600 Am stars at a photometric precision of 1 mmag with SuperWASP photometric data. Contrary to previous belief, we find that around 200 Am stars are pulsating δ Sct and γ Dor stars, with low amplitudes that have been missed in previous, less extensive studies. While the amplitudes are generally low, the presence of pulsation in Am stars places a strong constraint on atmospheric convection, and may require the pulsation to be laminar. While some pulsating Am stars have been previously found to be δ Sct stars, the vast majority of Am stars known to pulsate are presented in this paper. They will form the basis of future statistical studies of pulsation in the presence of atomic diffusion.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations67
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207