Bibliographic record
Abstract
Composite-spectrum binaries (containing a cool giant primary and a hot dwarf secondary) should be an answer to a theoretician's prayer.Because of their luminosity difference, both spectra are visible in the near UV, a region that includes several valuable luminosity and temperature indicators.If we just measure the radial velocity (RV) of the secondary at different dates, and construct an SB2 orbit, we immediate get the mass ratio of the component stars.A guess of the mass of the dwarf, and one thence obtains the mass of the cool giant -a unique and immensely valuable method.But just measure a hot dwarf's RV??It raises many problems, mostly caused by the nature of the star.A hot (late-B or early-A) dwarf has few lines, most are weak, they can be very blurred by rotation, and they get hidden by the crowded spectra of the giant.Spectral subtraction works a treat in separating the two spectra, but the residue is inevitably rather noisy.Nevertheless, results from well over half of the 45 brightest northern composite-spectrum binaries have been published; about 1 in 6 are triple systems, and a few have characteristics that defy any theoretician to explain.Several are 'bad' because their giant primaries have high luminosity and finding a matching standard for the subtraction process is troublesome, while the 'really ugly' include an Am star in a simple SB2 binary with a period of 75 years, a pair of early-A dwarfs in a 3-day orbit with amplitudes of 100 km s -1 and which show absolutely no rotational broadening at all, and another whose secondary (apparently a single star) is more that twice as massive as its primary giant.But 8 of the sample are also eclipsing, and manifest the hugely important phenomenon of chromospheric absorption -those are the 'really good' systems.The talk showed examples of each kind.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".