MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126238521 · doi:10.1017/s174392131301449x

Reaching the 1% accuracy level on stellar mass and radius determinations from asteroseismology

2013· article· en· W2126238521 on OpenAlexaff
V. Van Grootel, S. Charpinet, G. Fontaine, P. Brassard, E. M. Green

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Astronomical Union · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsteroseismologyRADIUSPhysicsSubdwarfStarsAstrophysicsLight curveAstronomyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Asteroseismic modeling of subdwarf B (sdB) stars provides measurements of their fundamental parameters with a very good precision; in particular, the masses and radii determined from asteroseismology are found to typically reach a precision of 1% containing various uncertainties associated with their inner structure and the underlying microphysics (composition and transition zones profiles, nuclear reaction rates, etc.). Therefore, the question of the accuracy of the stellar parameters derived by asteroseismology is legitimate. We present here the seismic modeling of the pulsating sdB star in the eclipsing binary PG 1336–018, for which the mass and the radius are independently and precisely known from the modeling of the reflection/irradiation effect and the eclipses observed in the light curve. This allows us to quantitatively evaluate the reliability of the seismic method and test the impact of uncertainties in our stellar models on the derived parameters. We conclude that the sdB star parameters inferred from asteroseismology are precise, accurate, and robust against model uncertainties.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Astronomical UnionSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207