Bibliographic record
Abstract
Field reddenings are summarized for 68 Cepheids from published studies and updated results presented here. The compilation forms the basis for a comparison with other published reddening scales of Cepheids, including those established from reddening-independent indices, photometry on the Lick six-color system, Str\{o}mgren system, Walraven system, Washington system, Cape $BVI$ system, DDO system, and Geneva system, IRSB studies, and Cepheid spectroscopy, both old and new. Reddenings tied to period-color relations are the least reliable, as expected, while photometric color excesses vary in precision, their accuracy depending on the methodology and calibration sample. The tests provide insights into the accuracy and precision of published Cepheid reddening scales, and lead to a new system of standardized reddenings comprising a sample of 198 variables with an average uncertainty of $\pm0.028$ in E$_{B-V}$, the precision being less than $\pm0.01$ for many. The collected color excesses are used to map the dispersion in intrinsic colors as a function of pulsation period, the results contradicting current perceptions about the period dependence of dispersion in Cepheid effective temperatures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
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".