MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3212087694 · doi:10.32374/atom.2020.2.7

Evidence for V363 Cas as a First Overtone Anomalous Cepheid

2021· article· en· W3212087694 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kafal Shawn

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy Theory Observation and Methods · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Space AgencyAthabasca University
KeywordsCepheid variableOvertoneRR Lyrae variableLight curveAstrophysicsPhysicsVariable starInstability stripAstronomyStarsSpectral line

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

V363 Cassiopeiae was observed through 51 acquisitions of each of V, B, i and z filters, during a 15 day observation window. From the observations, folded light curves were generated using a PDM technique. It was my objective to provide further evidence for this star’s reclassification as a first overtone Anomalous Cepheid, as some past papers have proposed (Fernley, 1998). Based on our light curve characteristics (shape, and period), V363 Cas appeared to favor the anomalous Cepheid class over any RR Lyrae class. My observed period of 0.545 days is higher than the typical range of periods for RRd Lyrae, reported between 0.25 and 0.49 days (Soszynski et al., 2008). The RRab type Lyrae, as some have imposed on V363 Cas (Kholopov et al., 1985), was ruled out due to the evidence for overtone pulsation by Hajdu et al. (Hajdu, Jurcsik, et al., 2009) and Fernley (Fernley, 1998). Finally, a rough distance comparison to GAIA, using Nemec’s 1994 P-L-[Fe/H] for Anomalous Cepheids (Nemec, Nemec, & Lutz, 1994), estimated the distance of V363 Cas to be closer to the distance estimated by GAIA than estimates made with RRd class equations.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy Theory Observation and Methods→Same topicAstro and Planetary Science→French-language works237,207→