MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2618075940 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201629844

The Tarantula Massive Binary Monitoring

2016· article· en· W2618075940 on OpenAlexafffund
L. A. Almeida, H. Sana, W. D. Taylor, R. H. Barbá, A. Z. Bonanos, P. A. Crowther, A. Damineli, A. de Koter, S. E. de Mink, C. J. Evans, Mark Gieles, N. J. Grin, V. Hénault-Brunet, N. Langer, D. J. Lennon, Sean Lockwood, J. Maíz Apellániz, A. F. J. Moffat, Coenraad J. Neijssel, Colin Norman, O. H. Ramírez-Agudelo, Noel D. Richardson, A. Schootemeijer, T. Shenar, I. Soszyński, F. Tramper, J. S. Vink

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre for Research in Astrophysics of Québec
FundersLeibniz-GemeinschaftNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaLeibniz-Institut für Astrophysik PotsdamMinisterio de Economía y CompetitividadUniversität PotsdamScience and Technology Facilities CouncilFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloEuropean CommissionHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeInternational Max Planck Research School for Advanced Methods in Process and Systems EngineeringEuropean Southern ObservatoryInternational Max Planck Research School for Environmental, Cellular and Molecular MicrobiologyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsAstrophysicsPhysicsSupernovaBinary numberMilky WayGalaxyOrbital elementsRange (aeronautics)Cluster (spacecraft)AstronomyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context. Massive binaries play a crucial role in the Universe. Knowing the distributions of their orbital parameters is important for a wide range of topics from stellar feedback to binary evolution channels and from the distribution of supernova types to gravitational wave progenitors, yet no direct measurements exist outside the Milky Way.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
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.

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

Citations149
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207