MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2118272902 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/1/33

<i>MOST</i>OBSERVATIONS OF σ Ori E: CHALLENGING THE CENTRIFUGAL BREAKOUT NARRATIVE

2013· article· en· W2118272902 on OpenAlexaff
R. H. D. Townsend, Th. Rivinius, Jason F. Rowe, A. F. J. Moffat, J. M. Matthews, D. Bohlender, C. Neiner, J. H. Telting, D. B. Guenther, T. Kallinger, R. Kuschnig, S. M. Ruciński, Dimitar Sasselov, W. W. Weiß

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsUniversity of TorontoSt. Mary's UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaSaint Mary's UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreakoutPhysicsAstrophysicsMagnetosphereAstronomyPlasmaEclipseNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present results from three weeks' photometric monitoring of the magnetic helium-strong star σ Ori E using the Microvariability and Oscillations of Stars microsatellite. The star's light curve is dominated by twice-per-rotation eclipse-like dimmings arising when magnetospheric clouds transit across and occult the stellar disk. However, no evidence is found for any abrupt centrifugal breakout of plasma from the magnetosphere, either in the residual flux or in the depths of the light minima. Motivated by this finding we compare the observationally inferred magnetospheric mass against that predicted by a breakout analysis. The large discrepancy between the values leads us to argue that centrifugal breakout does not play a significant role in establishing the magnetospheric mass budget of σ Ori E.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations45
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→