MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794570248 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aabae3

Kepler’s Earth-like Planets Should Not Be Confirmed without Independent Detection: The Case of Kepler-452b

2018· article· en· W2794570248 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlanetPlanetary habitabilityArtifact (error)ExoplanetSIGNAL (programming language)Terrestrial planetPlanetary system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We show that the claimed confirmed planet Kepler-452b (a.k.a., K07016.01, KIC 8311864) cannot be confirmed using a purely statistical validation approach. Kepler detects many more periodic signals from instrumental effects than it does from transits, and it is likely impossible to confidently distinguish the two types of events at low signal-to-noise. As a result, the scenario that the observed signal is due to an instrumental artifact cannot be ruled out with 99% confidence, and the system must still be considered a candidate planet. We discuss the implications for other confirmed planets in or near the habitable zone.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations24
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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