MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2720905813 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa932d

Seeing Double with K2: Testing Re-inflation with Two Remarkably Similar Planets around Red Giant Branch Stars

2017· article· en· W2720905813 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilEuropean CommissionCalifornia Institute of TechnologyNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationJet Propulsion LaboratorySpace Telescope Science InstituteNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPlanetAsteroseismologyGiant planetGas giantKepler-47Outer planetsStarsRadial velocityPlanetary system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Despite more than 20 years since the discovery of the first gas giant planet with an anomalously large radius, the mechanism for planet inflation remains unknown. Here, we report the discovery of K2-132b, an inflated gas giant planet found with the NASA K2 Mission, and a revised mass for another inflated planet, K2-97b. These planets orbit on ≈9 day orbits around host stars that recently evolved into red giants. We constrain the irradiation history of these planets using models constrained by asteroseismology and Keck/High Resolution Echelle Spectrometer spectroscopy and radial velocity measurements. We measure planet radii of 1.31 ± 0.11 R J and 1.30 ± 0.07 R J , respectively. These radii are typical for planets receiving the current irradiation, but not the former, zero age main-sequence irradiation of these planets. This suggests that the current sizes of these planets are directly correlated to their current irradiation. Our precise constraints of the masses and radii of the stars and planets in these systems allow us to constrain the planetary heating efficiency of both systems as . These results are consistent with a planet re-inflation scenario, but suggest that the efficiency of planet re-inflation may be lower than previously theorized. Finally, we discuss the agreement within 10% of the stellar masses and radii, and the planet masses, radii, and orbital periods of both systems, and speculate that this may be due to selection bias in searching for planets around evolved 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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations85
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207