MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946166805 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abaa3f

OGLE-2018-BLG-0532Lb: Cold Neptune with Possible Jovian Sibling

2020· article· en· W2946166805 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlanetJovianNeptuneExoplanetLens (geology)Star (game theory)Light curve

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We report the discovery of the planet OGLE-2018-BLG-0532Lb, with very obvious signatures in the light curve that lead to an estimate of the planet-host mass ratio . Although there are no obvious systematic residuals to this double-lens/single-source (2L1S) fit, we find that χ 2 can be significantly improved by adding either a third lens (3L1S, Δ χ 2 = 81) or second source (2L2S, Δ χ 2 = 77) to the lens-source geometry. After thorough investigation, we conclude that we cannot decisively distinguish between these two scenarios and therefore focus on the robustly detected planet. However, given the possible presence of a second planet, we investigate to what degree and with what probability such additional planets may affect seemingly single-planet light curves. Our best estimates for the properties of the lens star and the secure planet are a host mass M ∼ 0.25 M ⊙ , system distance D L ∼ 1 kpc, and planet mass with projected separation . However, there is a relatively bright I = 18.6 (and also relatively blue) star projected within of the lens, and if future high-resolution images show that this is coincident with the lens, then it is possible that it is the lens, in which case, the lens would be both more massive and more distant than the best-estimated values above.

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)0.000
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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.846

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations17
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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