MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2286257872

A Long Term Study of 89 Her: A Semi-Regular Pulsating Star

2015· article· en· W2286257872 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher Morrissey

Bibliographic record

VenueValpoScholar (Valparaiso University) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysics and Gravity Measurements
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)Star (game theory)Computer scienceAstronomyPhysicsAstrophysics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beginning in 1994, the astronomy research group at Valparaiso University has been studying the light curves of Proto-Planetary Nebulae (PPNe). In addition, we have also have been studying a few stars with similar properties. For one of these stars, 89 Her, a semi-regular pulsating binary star, we have been collecting brightness data since 1994 and have continued to do so up to the present time. These data were combined with data published Fernie in order to look for periodicity in the data. In addition to that, we combined radial velocity data from a collaborator in Canada with data published Waters in order to find periodicity. The periods found can be used to determine some of the properties of the star. From the brightness data in the R and V filters, I have determined one period of approximately 283 days in both V and R, a second period of 76.6 days in R and 65 days in the V, and a third period of 67 days in the V. From the radial velocity data, I have determined one dominant period of 290 days and two additional periods of 65 days and 61 days respectively. The longer period of approximately 283 days is thought to be due to light variation from the binary system. The shorter periods ranging from 60-80 days are due to the expanding and contracting of the main star. This research is supported by grants from the NSF and from NASA through the Indiana Space Grant Consortium.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.815

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueValpoScholar (Valparaiso University)Same topicGeophysics and Gravity MeasurementsFrench-language works237,207