MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009883955 · doi:10.1086/367929

Discovery of A New Class of Pulsating Stars: Gravity-Mode Pulsators among Subdwarf B Stars

2003· article· en· W3009883955 on OpenAlexaff
E. M. Green, G. Fontaine, M. D. Reed, K. Callerame, I. R. Seitenzahl, B. A. White, E. A. Hyde, R. H. Østensen, O. Cordes, P. Brassard, S. Falter, Elizabeth Jeffery, S. Dreizler, Sonja Schuh, M. K. Giovanni, H. Edelmann, Jane R. Rigby, A. Bronowska

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsStarsSubdwarfAstrophysicsAstronomyOpacityK-type main-sequence starLight curveInstability stripT Tauri starWhite dwarfCepheid variable

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the course of an ongoing CCD monitoring program to investigate low-level light variations in subdwarf B (sdB) stars, we have serendipitously discovered a new class of low-amplitude, multimode sdB pulsators with periods of the order of an hour. These periods are more than a factor of 10 longer than those of previously known multimode sdB pulsators (EC 14026 stars), implying that they are due to gravity modes rather than pressure modes. The longer period pulsators are found only among cooler sdB stars, where they are surprisingly common. The iron opacity instability that drives the short-period EC 14026 stars is effective only in hot sdB stars, leaving the driving mechanism for the deeper gravity modes in cool sdB stars currently unknown. We present the first observational results for our newly identified sdB variables and discuss possible implications.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations268
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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