MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2965488712 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab7b7b

Variability of Massive Stars in M31 from the Palomar Transient Factory

2020· article· en· W2965488712 on OpenAlexaff
Monika Soraisam, Lars Bildsten, M. R. Drout, Thomas A. Prince, Thomas Kupfer, Frank J. Masci, Russ R. Laher, S. R. Kulkarni

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersGordon and Betty Moore Foundation
KeywordsStarsSupergiantAstrophysicsPhysicsLight curveHertzsprung–Russell diagramVariable starAmplitudeObservatoryAstronomyStellar evolution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using data from the (intermediate) Palomar Transient Factory (iPTF), we characterize the time variability of ≈500 massive stars in M31. Our sample is those stars that are spectrally typed by Massey and collaborators, including Luminous Blue Variables, Wolf–Rayets, and warm and cool supergiants. We use the high-cadence, long-baseline (≈5 yr) data from the iPTF survey, coupled with data-processing tools that model complex features in the light curves. We find widespread photometric (R-band) variability in the upper Hertzsprung Russell diagram (or CMD) with an increasing prevalence of variability with later spectral types. Red stars (V − I > 1.5) exhibit larger amplitude fluctuations than their bluer counterparts. We extract a characteristic variability timescale, t ch, via wavelet transformations that are sensitive to both continuous and localized fluctuations. Cool supergiants are characterized by longer timescales (>100 days) than the hotter stars. The latter have typical timescales of tens of days but cover a wider range, from our resolution limit of a few days to longer than 100 days. Using a 60 night block of data straddling two nights with a cadence of around 2 minutes, we extracted t ch in the range 0.1–10 days with amplitudes of a few percent for 13 stars. Though there is broad agreement between the observed variability characteristics in the different parts of the upper CMD with theoretical predictions, detailed comparison requires models with a more comprehensive treatment of the various physical processes operating in these stars, such as pulsation, subsurface convection, and the effect of binary companions.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.212
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→