Fundamental properties of five<i>Kepler</i>stars using global asteroseismic quantities and ground-based observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present an asteroseismic study of the solar-like stars KIC 11395018, KIC 10273246, KIC 10920273, KIC 10339342, and KIC 11234888 using short-cadence time series of more than eight months from the Kepler satellite. For four of these stars, we derive atmospheric parameters from spectra acquired with the Nordic Optical Telescope. The global seismic quantities (average largefrequency separation and frequency of maximum power), combined with the atmospheric parameters, yield the mean density and surface gravity with precisions of 2% and ~0.03 dex, respectively. We also determine the radius, mass, and age with precisions of 2–5%, 7–11%, and ~35%, respectively, using grid-based analyses. Coupling the stellar parameters with photometric data yields an asteroseismic distance with a precision better than 10%. A vsini measurement provides a rotational period-inclination correlation, and using the rotational periods from the recent literature, we constrain the stellar inclination for three of the stars. An Li abundance analysis yields an independent estimate of the age, but this is inconsistent with the asteroseismically determined age for one of the stars. We assess the performance of five grid-based analysis methods and find them all to provide consistent values of the surface gravity to ~0.03 dex when both atmospheric and seismic constraints are at hand. The different grid-based analyses all yield fitted values of radius and mass to within 2.4σ, and taking the mean of these results reduces it to 1.5σ. The absence of a metallicity constraint when the average large frequency separation is measured with a precision of 1% biases the fitted radius and mass for the stars with non-solar metallicity (metal-rich KIC 11395018 and metal-poor KIC 10273246), while including a metallicity constraint reduces the uncertainties in both of these parameters by almost a factor of two. We found that including the average small frequency separation improves the determination of the age only for KIC 11395018 and KIC 11234888, and for the latter this improvement was due to the lack of strong atmospheric constraints.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".