MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2481623412 · doi:10.3847/0004-637x/826/1/92

ROTATION AND GRANULATION OF THE K2 GIANT α SER

2016· article· en· W2481623412 on OpenAlexaff
David F. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsGranulationRadial velocityLine (geometry)Giant starRADIUSSpectrographStarsAstronomySpectral lineGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The red giant α Ser was observed over 10 seasons, 2001–2010, at the Elginfield Observatory with the high-resolution coudé spectrograph. Season-mean radial velocities appear to show a small secular rise ∼11 ± 3 m s−1 yr−1. The absolute spectroscopic radial velocity with convective blueshifts taken into account is 2730 m s−1. Ten line-depth ratios were investigated and show that the star's temperature is constant with any secular variation below 1.3 ± 1.0 K over the 11 years of observation. Fourier analysis of the line broadening yields v sin i = 2.0 ± 0.3 km s−1 and a radial-tangential macroturbulence dispersion ζ RT = 4.50 ± 0.10 km s−1. The third-granulation-signature plot shows that the granulation velocities of α Ser are only 0.55 ± 0.10 as large as the Sun's. The line bisector of Fe i λ6253 has the usual “C” shape and when mapped onto the third-signature plot results in a flux deficit that is slightly broader than seen in other measured K giants. The deficit fractional area of 12.3 ± 1.5% suggests a temperature difference between granules and lanes of 105 K as seen averaged over the stellar disk.

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)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations11
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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