MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2973322687 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab4594

Radial Velocity Measurements of HR 8799 b and c with Medium Resolution Spectroscopy

2019· article· en· W2973322687 on OpenAlexaff
Jean-Baptiste Ruffio, Bruce Macintosh, Quinn Konopacky, Travis Barman, Robert J. De Rosa, Jason Wang, Kielan K. W. Hoch, Ian Czekala, Christian Marois

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
FundersScience Mission DirectorateAstrophysics DivisionCalifornia Institute of TechnologyNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsRadial velocitySpectroscopyResolution (logic)AstrophysicsOpticsAstronomyStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract High-contrast medium resolution spectroscopy has been used to detect molecules such as water and carbon monoxide in the atmospheres of gas giant exoplanets. In this work, we show how it can be used to derive radial velocity (RV) measurements of directly imaged exoplanets. Improving upon the traditional cross-correlation technique, we develop a new likelihood based on joint forward modeling of the planetary signal and the starlight background (i.e., speckles). After marginalizing over the starlight model, we infer the barycentric RV of HR 8799 b and c in 2010 yielding −9.2 ± 0.5 km s−1 and −11.6 ± 0.5 km s−1, respectively. These RV measurements help to constrain the 3D orientation of the orbit of the planet by resolving the degeneracy in the longitude of an ascending node. Assuming coplanar orbits for HR 8799 b and c, but not including d and e, we estimate and .

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations78
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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