MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884197089 · doi:10.1126/science.aat7032

Response to Comment on “An excess of massive stars in the local 30 Doradus starburst”

2018· letter· en· W2884197089 on OpenAlexaff
F. R. N. Schneider, H. Sana, C. J. Evans, J. M. Bestenlehner, N. Castro, L. Fossati, G. Gräfener, N. Langer, O. H. Ramírez-Agudelo, C. Sabín-Sanjulián, S. Simón‐Díaz, F. Tramper, P. A. Crowther, Alexander de Koter, S. E. de Mink, P. L. Dufton, M. García, Mark Gieles, V. Hénault-Brunet, A. Herrero, R. G. Izzard, V. M. Kalari, D. J. Lennon, J. Maíz Apellániz, Nevy Markova, F. Najarro, Philipp Podsiadlowski, J. Puls, W. D. Taylor, Jacco Th. van Loon, J. S. Vink, Colin Norman

Bibliographic record

VenueScience · 2018
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
FundersScience and Technology Facilities CouncilMinisterio de Asuntos Económicos y Transformación Digital, Gobierno de EspañaHintze Family Charitable Foundation
KeywordsStarsPhysicsInitial mass functionSolar massAstrophysicsFunction (biology)AstronomyStar formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Farr and Mandel reanalyze our data, finding initial mass function slopes for high-mass stars in 30 Doradus that agree with our results. However, their reanalysis appears to underpredict the observed number of massive stars. Their technique results in more precise slopes than in our work, strengthening our conclusion that there is an excess of massive stars (>30 solar masses) in 30 Doradus.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0330.025
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.010

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.255 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations79
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScienceSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207