MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980866069 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ab4cee

Compositions of Planetary Debris around Dusty White Dwarfs

2019· article· en· W2980866069 on OpenAlexaff
Siyi Xu, P. Dufour, B. Klein, Carl Melis, Nathaniel N. Monson, B. Zuckerman, Edward Young, Michael Jura

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPhysicsWhite dwarfDebrisAstrophysicsDebris diskAccretion (finance)Planetary systemAstrobiologyEvaporationPlanetesimalAstronomyPlanetStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The photospheres of some white dwarfs (WDs) are “polluted” by accretion of material from their surrounding planetary debris. WDs with dust disks are often heavily polluted and high-resolution spectroscopic observations of these systems can be used to infer the chemical compositions of extrasolar planetary material. Here, we report spectroscopic observation and analysis of 19 WDs with dust disks or candidate disks. The overall abundance pattern very much resembles that of bulk Earth and we are starting to build a large enough sample to probe a wide range of planetary compositions. We found evidence for accretion of Fe-rich material onto two WDs as well as O-rich but H-poor planetary debris onto one WD. In addition, there is a spread in Mg/Ca and Si/Ca ratios and it cannot be explained by differential settling or igneous differentiation. The ratios appear to follow an evaporation sequence. In this scenario, we can constrain the mass and number of evaporating bodies surrounding polluted WDs.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
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 head0.194
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations84
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207