MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767725952 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa991f

Spin–Orbit Misalignment and Precession in the Kepler-13Ab Planetary System

2017· article· en· W2767725952 on OpenAlexafffund
M. Herman, Ernst de Mooij, Chelsea X. Huang, Ray Jayawardhana

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsYork UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPrecessionPhysicsLight curveOrbit (dynamics)Transit (satellite)EclipseAstronomySpin (aerodynamics)AstrophysicsCadenceGeodesyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gravity darkening induced by rapid stellar rotation provides us with a unique opportunity to characterize the spin–orbit misalignment of a planetary system through analysis of its photometric transit. We use the gravity-darkened transit modeling code simuTrans to reproduce the transit light curve of Kepler-13Ab by separately analyzing phase-folded transits for 12 short-cadence Kepler quarters. We verify the temporal change in impact parameter indicative of spin–orbit precession identified by Szabó et al. and Masuda, reporting a rate of change day −1 . We further investigate the effect of light dilution on the fitted impact parameter and find that less than 1% of additional light is sufficient to explain the seasonal variation seen in the Kepler quarter data. We then extend our precession analysis to the phase curve data from which we report a rate of change day −1 . This value is consistent with that of the transit data at a lower significance and provides the first evidence of spin–orbit precession based solely on the temporal variation of the secondary eclipse.

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)0.001
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.615

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.256
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 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

Citations25
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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