MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2214954459 · doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/2/122

3.6 AND 4.5 μm SPITZER PHASE CURVES OF THE HIGHLY IRRADIATED HOT JUPITERS WASP-19b AND HAT-P-7b

2016· article· en· W2214954459 on OpenAlexaff
Ian Wong, Heather A. Knutson, Tiffany Kataria, Nikole K. Lewis, Adam Burrows, Jonathan J. Fortney, Joel Schwartz, Avi Shporer, Eric Agol, Nicolas B. Cowan, Drake Deming, Jean-Michel Désert, Benjamin J. Fulton, Andrew W. Howard, Jonathan Langton, Gregory Laughlin, Adam P. Showman, Kamen Todorov

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHot JupiterAstrophysicsPhysicsPlanetAtmospheric escapeAtmospheric sciencesAstronomyExoplanet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We analyze full-orbit phase curve observations of the transiting hot Jupiters WASP-19b and HAT-P-7b at 3.6 and 4.5 μ m, obtained using the Spitzer Space Telescope . For WASP-19b, we measure secondary eclipse depths of and at 3.6 and 4.5 μ m, which are consistent with a single blackbody with effective temperature 2372 ± 60 K. The measured 3.6 and 4.5 μ m secondary eclipse depths for HAT-P-7b are and , which are well described by a single blackbody with effective temperature 2667 ± 57 K. Comparing the phase curves to the predictions of one-dimensional and three-dimensional atmospheric models, we find that WASP-19b’s dayside emission is consistent with a model atmosphere with no dayside thermal inversion and moderately efficient day–night circulation. We also detect an eastward-shifted hotspot, which suggests the presence of a superrotating equatorial jet. In contrast, HAT-P-7b’s dayside emission suggests a dayside thermal inversion and relatively inefficient day–night circulation; no hotspot shift is detected. For both planets, these same models do not agree with the measured nightside emission. The discrepancies in the model-data comparisons for WASP-19b might be explained by high-altitude silicate clouds on the nightside and/or high atmospheric metallicity, while the very low 3.6 μ m nightside planetary brightness for HAT-P-7b may be indicative of an enhanced global C/O ratio. We compute Bond albedos of 0.38 ± 0.06 and 0 ( at ) for WASP-19b and HAT-P-7b, respectively. In the context of other planets with thermal phase curve measurements, we show that WASP-19b and HAT-P-7b fit the general trend of decreasing day–night heat recirculation with increasing irradiation.

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 score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations144
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207