MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326851049 · doi:10.1017/s1743921313008624

Additional Keplerian Signals in the HARPS data for Gliese 667C: Further Analysis

2013· article· en· W2326851049 on OpenAlexaff
P. C. Gregory, Samantha Lawler, Brett Gladman

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Astronomical Union · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlanetCircumstellar habitable zonePhysicsAstrophysicsRadial velocityStarsAstronomyExoplanet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A re-analysis of Gliese 667C HARPS precision radial velocity data was carried out with a Bayesian multi-planet Kepler periodogram (from 0 to 7 planets) based on a fusion Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm. The most probable number of signals detected is six with a Bayesian false alarm probability of 0.012. The residuals were shown to be consistent with white noise. The six signals detected include two previously reported with periods of 7.198 (b) and 28.14 (c) days, plus additional periods of 30.82, 38.82, 53.22, and 91.3 days. The existence of these Keplerian-like signals suggest the possibility of additional planets in the habitable zone of Gl 667C although some of the signals could be artifacts arising from the sampling or stellar surface activity. N-body orbital integrations are being undertaken to determine which of these signals are consistent with a stable planetary system. Preliminary results demonstrate that four of the signals, with periods of 7.2, 28.1, 38.8, & 91 d, are consistent with a stable 4 planet system on time scales of 107 yr. The M sin i values are ~5.5, 4.4, 1.9, and 4.7 M⊕, respectively.

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)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the International Astronomical UnionSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207