MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806988361 · doi:10.1093/mnrasl/sly104

On the use of <i>Gaia</i> magnitudes and new tables of bolometric corrections

2018· article· en· W2806988361 on OpenAlexaff
L. Casagrande, Don A. VandenBerg

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society Letters · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsPhysicsPhotometry (optics)AstrophysicsVegaBolometerStarsLimitingLimiting magnitudeAstronomyDetectorOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The availability of reliable bolometric corrections and reddening estimates, rather than the quality of parallaxes, will be one of the main limiting factors in determining the luminosities of a large fraction of Gaia stars. With this goal in mind, we provide GaiaGBP, G, and GRP synthetic photometry for the entire MARCS grid and test the performance of our synthetic colours and bolometric corrections against space-borne absolute spectrophotometry. We find indication of a magnitude-dependent offset in Gaia DR2 G magnitudes, which must be taken into account in high-accuracy investigations. Our interpolation routines are easily used to derive bolometric corrections at desired stellar parameters and to explore the dependence of Gaia photometry on Teff, $\log \,g$, $\rm {[Fe/H]}$, $[\alpha /\rm {Fe}]$, and E(B − V). Gaia colours for the Sun and Vega, and Teff-dependent extinction coefficients are also provided.

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)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations288
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society LettersSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207