MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3099766310

KMT-2016-BLG-1836Lb: A Super-Jovian Planet from a High-cadence Microlensing Field

2020· article· en· W3099766310 on OpenAlexaff
Hongjing Yang, Xiangyu Zhang, Weicheng Zang, Andrew Gould, Tianshu Wang, Shude Mao, Michael D. Albrow, Cheongho Han, Youn Kil Jung, Yossi Shvartzvald, Jennifer C. Yee, Wei Zhu, Matthew T. Penny, P. Fouqué, Yongseok Lee, Richard W. Pogge

Bibliographic record

VenueCivil War Book Review · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsCanadian Institute for Theoretical AstrophysicsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravitational microlensingJovianPlanetPhysicsAstrophysicsPlanetary systemJupiter (rocket family)AstronomyMass ratioGiant planetStarsSaturn
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the discovery of a super-Jovian planet in the microlensing event KMT-2016-BLG-1836, which was found by the Korea Microlensing Telescope Network (KMTNet) high-cadence observations (Γ ∼ 4 hr-1). The planet-host mass ratio q ∼ 0.004. A Bayesian analysis indicates that the planetary system is composed of a super-Jovian Mplanet = 2.2-1.1+1.9MJ planet orbiting an M or K dwarf, Mhost = 0.49-0.25+0.38M&odot, at a distance of DL = 7.1-2.4+0.8 kpc. The projected planet-host separation is 3.5-0.9+1.1 au, implying that the planet is located beyond the snow line of the host star. Future high-resolution images can potentially strongly constrain the lens brightness and thus the mass and distance of the planetary system. Without considering detailed detection efficiency, selection, or publication biases, we find a potential mass-ratio desert at -3.7 ≲ log q ≲ -3.0 for the 31 published KMTNet planets.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCivil War Book ReviewSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207