MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2474039259 · doi:10.3847/0004-637x/831/1/17

DETECTION OF SOLAR-LIKE OSCILLATIONS, OBSERVATIONAL CONSTRAINTS, AND STELLAR MODELS FOR θ CYG, THE BRIGHTEST STAR OBSERVED BY THE KEPLER MISSION

2016· article· en· W2474039259 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsSaint Mary's University
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsAsteroseismologyRADIUSAmplitudeAngular diameterStar (game theory)Oscillation (cell signaling)StarsStellar evolutionRed giant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT θ Cygni is an F3 spectral type magnitude V = 4.48 main-sequence star that was the brightest star observed by the original Kepler spacecraft mission. Short-cadence (58.8 s) photometric data using a custom aperture were first obtained during Quarter 6 (2010 June–September) and subsequently in Quarters 8 and 12–17. We present analyses of solar-like oscillations based on Q6 and Q8 data, identifying angular degree l = 0, 1, and 2 modes with frequencies of 1000–2700 μHz, a large frequency separation of 83.9 ± 0.4 μHz, and maximum oscillation amplitude at frequency ν max = 1829 ± 54 μHz. We also present analyses of new ground-based spectroscopic observations, which, combined with interferometric angular diameter measurements, give T eff = 6697 ± 78 K, radius 1.49 ± 0.03 R ⊙, [Fe/H] = −0.02 ± 0.06 dex, and log g = 4.23 ± 0.03. We calculate stellar models matching these constraints using the Yale Rotating Evolution Code and the Asteroseismic Modeling Portal. The best-fit models have masses of 1.35–1.39 M ⊙ and ages of 1.0–1.6 Gyr. θ Cyg’s T eff and log g place it cooler than the red edge of the γ Doradus instability region established from pre-Kepler ground-based observations, but just at the red edge derived from pulsation modeling. The pulsation models show γ Dor gravity modes driven by the convective blocking mechanism, with frequencies of 1–3 cycles per day (11 to 33 μHz). However, gravity modes were not seen in Kepler data; one signal at 1.776 cycles per day (20.56 μHz) may be attributable to a faint, possibly background, binary.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations20
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→