MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4307045304 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac6fdf

X-Rays in Cepheids: Identifying Low-mass Companions of Intermediate-mass Stars*

2022· article· en· W4307045304 on OpenAlexaff
Nancy Remage Evans, Scott G. Engle, I. Pillitteri, E. F. Guinan, Hans Moritz Günther, S. J. Wolk, Hilding R. Neilson, M. Marengo, Lynn D. Matthews, Sofia P. Moschou, J. J. Drake, Elaine Winston, Maxwell Moe, P. Kervella, Louise Breuval

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEuropean CommissionNuclear Safety and Security CommissionEuropean Space AgencySpace Telescope Science InstituteNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsCepheid variablePhysicsAstrophysicsLow MassStarsAstronomyFlux (metallurgy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract X-ray observations have been made of a sample of 20 classical Cepheids, including two new observations (Polaris and l Car) reported here. The occurrence of X-ray flux around the pulsation cycle is discussed. Three Cepheids are detected (δ Cep, β Dor, and Polaris). X-rays have also been detected from the low-mass F, G, and K companions of four Cepheids (V473 Lyr, R Cru, V659 Cen, and W Sgr) and one hot companion (S Mus). Upper limits on the X-ray flux of the remaining Cepheids provide an estimate that 28% have low-mass companions. This fraction of low-mass companions in intermediate-mass Cepheids is significantly lower than expected from random pairing with the field initial mass function (IMF). Combining the companion fraction from X-rays with that from ultraviolet observations results in a binary/multiple fraction of 57% ± 12% for Cepheids with ratios q > 0.1 and separations a >1 au. This is a lower limit since M stars are not included. X-ray observations detect less massive companions than other existing studies of intermediate-mass stars. Our measured occurrence rate of unresolved, low-mass companions to Cepheids suggests that intermediate-period binaries derive from a combination of disk and core fragmentation and accretion. This yields a hybrid mass ratio distribution that is skewed toward small values compared to a uniform distribution but is still top-heavy compared to random pairings drawn from the IMF.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→