MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2979821632 · doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2895

The chaotic wind of WR 40 as probed by BRITE

2019· article· en· W2979821632 on OpenAlexafffund
Tahina Ramiaramanantsoa, Richard Ignace, A. F. J. Moffat, Nicole St‐Louis, Evgenya L. Shkolnik, Adam Popowicz, R. Kuschnig, A. Pigulski, G. A. Wade, G. Handler, H. Pablo, K. Zwintz

Bibliographic record

VenueMonthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal Military College of CanadaUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Science Foundation of Sri LankaCanadian Space AgencyÖsterreichische ForschungsförderungsgesellschaftUniversität WienKarl-Franzens-Universität GrazNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNarodowe Centrum NaukiNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsLight curveAstrophysicsPhotometry (optics)BrightnessPower lawStarsPhotosphereAstronomyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Among Wolf–Rayet stars, those of subtype WN8 are the intrinsically most variable. We have explored the long-term photometric variability of the brightest known WN8 star, WR 40, through four contiguous months of time-resolved, single-passband optical photometry with the BRIght Target Explorer nanosatellite mission. The Fourier transform of the observed light curve reveals that the strong light variability exhibited by WR 40 is dominated by many randomly triggered, transient, low-frequency signals. We establish a model in which the whole wind consists of stochastic clumps following an outflow visibility promptly rising to peak brightness upon clump emergence from the optically thick pseudo-photosphere in the wind, followed by a gradual decay according to the right-half of a Gaussian. Free electrons in each clump scatter continuum light from the star. We explore a scenario where the clump size follows a power-law distribution, and another one with an ensemble of clumps of constant size. Both scenarios yield simulated light curves morphologically resembling the observed light curve remarkably well, indicating that one cannot uniquely constrain the details of clump size distribution with only a photometric light curve. Nevertheless, independent evidence favours a negative-index power law, as seen in many other astrophysical turbulent media.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations18
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→