MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155896590 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321817

KIC 8410637: a 408-day period eclipsing binary containing a pulsating giant star

2013· article· en· W2155896590 on OpenAlexaff
S. Frandsen, H. Lehmann, S. Hekker, J. Southworth, J. Debosscher, P. G. Beck, M. Hartmann, A. Pigulski, G. Kopacki, Z. Kołaczkowski, M. Stȩślicki, A. O. Thygesen, K. Brogaard, Y. Elsworth

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekBelgian Federal Science Policy OfficeFonds De La Recherche Scientifique - FNRSDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftNational Research FoundationVillum FondenScience and Technology Facilities CouncilVlaamse regeringStellar Astrophysics CentreDanmarks GrundforskningsfondNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsBinary starBinary numberAstronomyStar (game theory)Period (music)Stars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context. Detached eclipsing binaries (dEBs) are ideal targets for accurately measuring the masses and radii of their component stars. If at least one of the stars has evolved off the main sequence (MS), the masses and radii give a strict constraint on the age of the stars. Several dEBs containing a bright K giant and a fainter MS star have been discovered by the Kepler satellite. The mass and radius of a red giant (RG) star can also be derived from its asteroseismic signal. The parameters determined in this way depend on stellar models and may contain systematic errors. It is important to validate the asteroseismically determined mass and radius with independent methods. This can be done when stars are members of stellar clusters or members of dEBs.

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)0.000
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations97
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207