MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2281864350 · doi:10.3847/0004-637x/820/2/139

STABLE AND UNSTABLE REGIMES OF MASS ACCRETION ONTO RW AUR A

2016· article· en· W2281864350 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Takami, Yujie Wei, Mei-Yin Chou, Jennifer L. Karr, Tracy L. Beck, N. Manset, Wen-Ping Chen, Ryuichi Kurosawa, Marc White, Roberto Galván-Madrid, Hauyu Baobab Liu, Tae‐Soo Pyo, J.‐F. Donati

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsAstrophysicsPhysicsT Tauri starPhotometry (optics)Accretion (finance)RedshiftAstronomySpectral lineOccultationStarsGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We present monitoring observations of the active T Tauri star RW Aur, from 2010 October to 2015 January, using optical high-resolution (R ≥ 10,000) spectroscopy with Canada–France–Hawaii Telescope/ESPaDOnS. Optical photometry in the literature shows bright, stable fluxes over most of this period, with lower fluxes (by 2–3 mag) in 2010 and 2014. In the bright period our spectra show clear photospheric absorption, complicated variation in the Ca ii λ8542 emission profile shapes, and a large variation in redshifted absorption in the O i λλ7772 and 8446 and He i λ5876 lines, suggesting unstable mass accretion during this period. In contrast, these line profiles are relatively uniform during the faint periods, suggesting stable mass accretion. During the faint periods, the photospheric absorption lines are absent or marginal, and the averaged Li i profile shows redshifted absorption due to an inflow. We discuss (1) occultation by circumstellar material or a companion and (2) changes in the activity of mass accretion to explain the above results, together with near-infrared and X-ray observations from 2011 to 2015. Neither scenario can simply explain all the observed trends, and more theoretical work is needed to further investigate their feasibilities.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations23
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies→French-language works237,207→