MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796707427 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aacf99

Characterizing K2 Candidate Planetary Systems Orbiting Low-mass Stars. III. A High Mass and Low Envelope Fraction for the Warm Neptune K2-55b*

2018· article· en· W2796707427 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlanetPlanetary systemEphemerisTransit (satellite)NeptuneRADIUSRadial velocityExoplanetEnvelope (radar)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract K2-55b is a Neptune-sized planet orbiting a K7 dwarf with a radius of , a mass of 0.688 ± 0.069 , and an effective temperature of K. Having characterized the host star using near-infrared spectra obtained at IRTF/SpeX, we observed a transit of K2-55b with Spitzer/ Infrared Array Camera (IRAC) and confirmed the accuracy of the original K2 ephemeris for future follow-up transit observations. Performing a joint fit to the Spitzer/IRAC and K2 photometry, we found a planet radius of , an orbital period of days, and an equilibrium temperature of roughly 900 K. We then measured the planet mass by acquiring 12 radial velocity (RV) measurements of the system using the High Resolution Echelle Spectrometer on the 10 m Keck I Telescope. Our RV data set precisely constrains the mass of K2-55b to , indicating that K2-55b has a bulk density of g cm −3 and can be modeled as a rocky planet capped by a modest H/He envelope ( M envelope = 12 ± 3% M p ). K2-55b is denser than most similarly sized planets, raising the question of whether the high planetary bulk density of K2-55b could be attributed to the high metallicity of K2-55. The absence of a substantial volatile envelope despite the high mass of K2-55b poses a challenge to current theories of gas giant formation. We posit that K2-55b may have escaped runaway accretion by migration, late formation, or inefficient core accretion, or that K2-55b was stripped of its envelope by a late giant impact.

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 score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.205
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207