MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2742726139 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa8453

Absolute-magnitude Calibration for W UMa-type Systems Based on Gaia Data*

2017· article· en· W2742726139 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalibrationParallaxOrbital periodBinary numberRange (aeronautics)Term (time)Orbital elements

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tycho-Gaia Astrometric Solution (TGAS) parallax data are used to determine absolute magnitudes M V for 318 W UMa-type (EW) contact binary stars. A very steep (slope ≃ −9), single-parameter ( ), linear calibration can be used to predict M V to about 0.1–0.3 mag over the whole range of accessible orbital period, days. A similar calibration for the most common systems with days predicts M V values to about 0.06–0.16 mag. For orbital period values both shorter and longer than the central range, the period dependence is respectively steeper and shallower, i.e., the binaries are fainter in M V than predicted by the whole-range linear law. The steepness of the relation for short-period systems implies important consequences for the detectability of the faintest binaries, defining the short-period cut-off of the period distribution. Although the scatter around the linear -fit is fairly large (0.2–0.4 mag), the current data do not support the inclusion of a color term in the calibration.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations19
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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