MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280596843 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/ac6261

A New Analysis of Eight Spitzer Phase Curves and Hot Jupiter Population Trends: Qatar-1b, Qatar-2b, WASP-52b, WASP-34b, and WASP-140b

2022· article· en· W4280596843 on OpenAlexafffund
Erin May, Kevin B. Stevenson, Jacob L. Bean, Taylor J. Bell, Nicolas B. Cowan, Lisa Dang, Jean-Michel Désert, Jonathan J. Fortney, Dylan Keating, Eliza M.-R. Kempton, Thaddeus D. Komacek, Nikole K. Lewis, Megan Mansfield, Caroline Morley, Vivien Parmentier, Emily Rauscher, Mark G. Swain, Robert T. Zellem, Adam P. Showman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMcGill Space InstituteNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionJet Propulsion LaboratoryNuclear Safety and Security CommissionSpace Telescope Science InstituteMcGill UniversityCalifornia Institute of TechnologyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsPlanetHot JupiterPhysicsAstrophysicsPopulationLight curveAstronomyExoplanet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With over 30 phase curves observed during the warm Spitzer mission, the complete data set provides a wealth of information relating to trends and three-dimensional properties of hot Jupiter atmospheres. In this work we present a comparative study of seven new Spitzer phase curves for four planets with equilibrium temperatures T eq ∼ 1300K: Qatar-2b, WASP-52b, WASP-34b, and WASP-140b, as well as a reanalysis of the 4.5 μ m Qatar-1b phase curve due to the similar equilibrium temperature. In total, five 4.5 μ m phase curves and three 3.6 μ m phase curves are analyzed here with a uniform approach. Using these new results, in combination with literature values for the entire population of published Spitzer phase curves of hot Jupiters, we present evidence for a linear trend of increasing hotspot offset with increasing orbital period, as well as observational evidence for two classes of planets in apparent redistribution versus equilibrium temperature parameter space, and tentative evidence for a dependence of hotspot offset on planetary surface gravity in our ∼1300 K sample. We do not find trends in apparent heat redistribution with orbital period or gravity. Nonuniformity in literature Spitzer data analysis techniques precludes a definitive determination of the sources or lack of trends.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.249
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations36
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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