MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402254537 · doi:10.1088/1674-4527/ad7793

BSN: The First Light Curve Analysis of the Total Eclipse Binary System EL Tuc

2024· article· en· W4402254537 on OpenAlexaff
Elham Sarvari, E. Fernández Lajús, Atila Poro

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Astronomy and Astrophysics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Indigenous Peoples' Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsLight curveAstrophysicsEclipseBinary numberBinary systemAstronomyArithmetic

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We conducted the first light curve study of the binary star EL Tuc within the Binary Systems of South and North project’s framework. The photometric observations were made using standard multiband BVR c I c filters at an observatory in Argentina. We presented a new ephemeris for EL Tuc and a linear fit to the O – C diagram, utilizing our extracted times of minima and additional literature. We employed the PHysics Of Eclipsing BinariEs Python code and the Markov chain Monte Carlo approach for the system’s light curve analysis. The target system’s light curve solution required a cold starspot on the hotter component. We conclude that EL Tuc is a total contact binary system with a low mass ratio of q = 0.172 ± 0.002, an orbital inclination of i = 83.°74 ± 0.°40, and a fillout factor of f = 53.7% ± 1.6%. We used the P – a relationship and the Gaia Data Release 3 parallax method to determine the absolute parameters of EL Tuc to compare the precision of our results. This system was classified as W-type based on the mass and effective temperature of the companion stars. The positions of the systems were depicted on the M – L , M – R , T – M , and q – L ratio diagrams. The relationship between the spectroscopic and photometric mass ratios of binaries was discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.265 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch in Astronomy and AstrophysicsSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207