MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2568344315 · doi:10.1093/pasj/57.1.193

The 2003 Superoutburst of an SU UMa-Type Dwarf Nova, GO Comae Berenicis

2005· article· en· W2568344315 on OpenAlexaff
Akira Imada, Taichi Kato, Makoto Uemura, Ryoko Ishioka, Thomas Krajci, Y. Sano, Tonny Vanmunster, D. Starkey, Lewis M. Cook, Jochen Pietz, Daisaku Nogami, Bill Yeung, Kazuhiro Nakajima, Kenji Tanabe, M. Koizumi, Hiroki Taguchi, Norimi Yamada, Yuichi Nishi, Brian Martin, Ken’ichi Torii, Kenzo Kinugasa, Christopher P. Jones

Bibliographic record

VenuePublications of the Astronomical Society of Japan · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsThe King's University
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of ScienceMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologySpace Telescope Science Institute
KeywordsDwarf novaPhysicsAstrophysicsLight curveAccretion discAmplitudePlateau (mathematics)Accretion (finance)AstronomyLow MassStarsWhite dwarf

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We photometrically observed a 2003 June superoutburst of GO Gom. The mean superhump period was 0.063059(13) d. The resultant data revealed that (1) the obtained light curve contained a precursor, (2) a plateau stage of the object lasted for 8 days, which is remarkably shorter than that of ordinary SU UMa-type dwarf novae, and (3) the amplitude of the superoutburst was less than 5 mag, which is unpredictably small when taking into account the fact that the supercycle of GO Com is about 2800 days. In order to explain these anomalies, a mass-elimination process from the accretion disk, such as evaporation, may play an important role.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublications of the Astronomical Society of JapanSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207