MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121840604 · doi:10.1093/mnrasl/slt153

Alignment in star–debris disc systems seen by <i>Herschel</i>

2013· article· en· W2121840604 on OpenAlexaff
J. S. Greaves, Grant M. Kennedy, N. Thureau, C. Eiroa, J. P. Marshall, J. Maldonado, Brenda C. Matthews, G. Olofsson, M. J. Barlow, Amaya Moro‐Martín, B. Sibthorpe, Olivier Absil, D. R. Ardila, Mark Booth, H. Broekhoven-Fiene, D. J. A. Brown, A. Collier Cameron, C. del Burgo, James Di Francesco, J. Eislöffel, Gaspard Duchêne, Steve Ertel, W. S. Holland, Jonathan Horner, Paul Kalas, J. J. Kavelaars, Jean‐François Lestrade, Laura Vican, David J. Wilner, S. Wolf, M. C. Wyatt

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Victoria
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsPhysicsDebrisPlanetStarsAstrophysicsAstronomyPlanetary systemDebris disk

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many nearby main-sequence stars have been searched for debris using the far-infrared Herschel satellite, within the DEBRIS, DUNES and Guaranteed-Time Key Projects. We discuss here 11 stars of spectral types A–M where the stellar inclination is known and can be compared to that of the spatially resolved dust belts. The discs are found to be well aligned with the stellar equators, as in the case of the Sun's Kuiper belt, and unlike many close-in planets seen in transit surveys. The ensemble of stars here can be fitted with a star–disc tilt of ≲ 10°. These results suggest that proposed mechanisms for tilting the star or disc in fact operate rarely. A few systems also host imaged planets, whose orbits at tens of au are aligned with the debris discs, contrary to what might be expected in models where external perturbers induce tilts.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations63
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society LettersSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207