MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2970754382 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2394

A magnetic white dwarf with five H α components

2019· article· en· W2970754382 on OpenAlexafffund
Mukremin Kilic, B. Rolland, P. Bergeron, Zachary P. Vanderbosch, Paul Benni, J. Garlitz

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e InovaçãoNational Science FoundationKorea Astronomy and Space Science InstituteMinisterio de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación Productiva
KeywordsWhite dwarfPhysicsAstrophysicsMagnetic fieldPhotometry (optics)Degenerate energy levelsRotation periodSpectroscopyAstronomyStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT G183−35 is an unusual white dwarf that shows an H α line split into five components, instead of the usual three components seen in strongly magnetic white dwarfs. Potential explanations for the unusual set of lines include a double degenerate system containing two magnetic white dwarfs and/or rotational modulation of a complex magnetic field structure. Here, we present time-resolved spectroscopy of G183−35 obtained at the Gemini Observatory. These data reveal two sets of absorption lines that appear and disappear over a period of about 4 h. We also detect low-level (0.2 per cent) variability in optical photometry at the same period. We demonstrate that the spectroscopic and photometric variability can be explained by the presence of spots on the surface of the white dwarf and a change in the average field strength from about 4.6 to 6.2 MG. The observed variability is clearly due to G183−35’s relatively short spin period. However, rotational modulation of a complex magnetic field by itself cannot explain the changes seen in the central H α component. An additional source of variability in the line profiles, most likely due to a chemically inhomogeneous surface composition, is also needed. We propose further observations of similar objects to test this scenario.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→