MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2400805728 · doi:10.1086/338440

Composite Spectra. XII. μ Leonis: An Evolving A[CLC]m[/CLC] Binary

2002· article· en· W2400805728 on OpenAlexaff
R. E. M. Griffin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsStarsPrimary (astronomy)AstrophysicsBinary numberBinary starStellar classificationComponent (thermodynamics)Stellar evolutionAstronomySpectral line

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is shown by techniques of spectrum disentangling that both components of the composite-spectrum binary o Leo (V = 3.52 mag) have Am characteristics, even though the primary is an evolving giant (log g = 3.25) with Teff ∼ 6100 K. This is believed to be the first isolation of such a cool Am star, and the finding challenges the theories of diffusion, which are widely accepted as the cause of metallicism. The primary component of o Leo appears to be deficient in Ca and Sc, as are classical Am stars—though the δ Del stars which are described as evolved Am stars are not—and therefore seems to be in a class on its own. It is suggested that the unusual state of the primary component is attributable either to its current state of rapid evolution or to regular Am-star evolution that is difficult to recognize spectroscopically. This paper describes the technical problems that have hitherto prevented the identification of such unexpected properties in this easily observed binary, determines the physical parameters of the component stars, examines their evolutionary states, and debates the possible classification of the giant component. Future directions for this work will include detailed chemical composition analyses and an observing program designed to search for other cases of substantially evolved Am stars.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.198 · 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.

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

Citations33
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207