MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329887492 · doi:10.1017/s1743921313008806

Locating the Dust in A Star Debris Discs

2013· article· en· W2329887492 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Booth, Grant M. Kennedy, B. Sibthorpe, Brenda C. Matthews, M. C. Wyatt, Gaspard Duchêne, J. J. Kavelaars, David R. Rodriguez, J. S. Greaves, Alice de Koning, Laura Vican, G. H. Rieke, K. Y. L. Su, Amaya Moro‐Martín, Paul Kalas

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the International Astronomical Union · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlack-body radiationPhysicsDebrisAstrophysicsSpectral energy distributionPhotometry (optics)Circumstellar dustStarsAstronomyInfrared excessCosmic dustSpectral signatureGalaxyMeteorologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using photometry at just two wavelengths it is possible to fit a blackbody to the spectrum of infrared excess that is the signature of a debris disc. From this the location of the dust can be inferred. However, it is well known that dust in debris discs is not a perfect blackbody. By resolving debris discs we can find the actual location of the dust and compare this to that inferred from the blackbody fit. Using the Herschel Space Observatory we resolved many systems as part of the DEBRIS survey. Here we discuss a sample of 9 discs surrounding A stars and find that the discs are actually located between 1 and 2.5 times further from their star than predicted by blackbody fits to the spectral energy distribution (SED). The variation in this ratio is due to differences in stellar luminosities, location of the dust, size distribution and composition of the dust.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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