Galactic Archaeology with asteroseismology and spectroscopy: Red giants observed by CoRoT and APOGEE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advent of the space missions CoRoT and Kepler, it has become feasible to determine precise asteroseismic masses and ages for large samples of red-giant stars. In this paper, we present the CoRoGEE dataset -- obtained from CoRoT lightcurves for 606 red giant stars in two fields of the Galactic disc which have been co-observed for an ancillary project of APOGEE. We have used the Bayesian parameter estimation code PARAM to calculate distances, extinctions, masses, and ages for these stars in a homogeneous analysis, resulting in relative statistical uncertainties of $\sim2\%$ in distance, $\sim4\%$ in radius, $\sim9\%$ in mass and $\sim25\%$ in age. We also assess systematic age uncertainties due to different input physics and mass loss. We discuss the correlation between ages and chemical abundance patterns of field stars over a large radial range of the Milky Way's disc (5 kpc $
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".