MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2134449912 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201219158

Period decrease in three SuperWASP eclipsing binary candidates near the short-period limit

2012· article· en· W2134449912 on OpenAlexfundno aff
M. E. Lohr, A. J. Norton, U. Kolb, D. R. Anderson, F. Faedi, R. G. West

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsOrbital periodPhysicsMerge (version control)Light curveAstrophysicsPeriod (music)Angular momentumBinary numberGravitational waveStarsContact binaryBinary starAstronomyClassical mechanicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SuperWASP light curves for 53 W UMa-type eclipsing binary (EB) candidates, identified in previous work as being close to the contact binary short-period limit, were studied for evidence of period change. The orbital periods of most of the stars were confirmed, and period decrease, significant at more than 5σ, was observed in three objects: 1SWASP J174310.98+432709.6 (−0.055 ± 0.003 s yr-1), 1SWASP J133105.91+121538.0 (−0.075 ± 0.013 s yr-1) and 1SWASP J234401.81−212229.1 (−0.313 ± 0.019 s yr-1). The magnitudes of the observed period changes cannot be explained by magnetic braking or gravitational radiation effects, and are most likely primarily due to unstable mass transfer from primary to secondary components, possibly accompanied by unstable mass and angular momentum loss from the systems. If these period decreases persist, the systems could merge on a relatively short timescale.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations48
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and Astrophysics→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→