Rotation, spectral variability, magnetic geometry and magnetosphere of the Of?p star CPD −28° 2561★
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report magnetic and spectroscopic observations and modelling of the Of?p star CPD −28° 2561. Using more than 75 new spectra, we have measured the equivalent width variations and examined the dynamic spectra of photospheric and wind-sensitive spectral lines. A period search results in an unambiguous 73.41 d variability period. High-resolution spectropolarimetric data analysed using least-squares deconvolution yield a Zeeman signature detected in the mean Stokes V profile corresponding to phase 0.5 of the spectral ephemeris. Interpreting the 73.41 d period as the stellar rotational period, we have phased the equivalent widths and inferred longitudinal field measurements. The phased magnetic data exhibit a weak sinusoidal variation, with maximum of about 565 G at phase 0.5, and a minimum of about −335 G at phase 0.0, with extrema approximately in phase with the (double-wave) Hα equivalent width variation. Modelling of the Hα equivalent width variation assuming a quasi-3D magnetospheric model produces a unique solution for the ambiguous couplet of inclination and magnetic obliquity angles: (i, β) or (β, i) = (35°, 90°). Adopting either geometry, the longitudinal field variation yields a dipole polar intensity Bd = 2.6 ± 0.9 kG, consistent with that obtained from direct modelling of the Stokes V profiles. We derive a wind magnetic confinement parameter η* ≃ 100, leading to an Alfvén radius RA ≃ 3–5R*, and a Kepler radius RK ≃ 20R*. This supports a physical scenario in which the Hα emission and other line variability have their origin in an oblique, corotating ‘dynamical magnetosphere’ structure resulting from a magnetically channelled wind. Nevertheless, the details of the formation of spectral lines and their variability within this framework remain generally poorly understood.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".