MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403886500 · doi:10.3847/2515-5172/ad8b46

Updated Forecast for TRAPPIST-1 Times of Transit for All Seven Exoplanets Incorporating JWST Data

2024· article· en· W4403886500 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Agol, Natalie H. Allen, Björn Benneke, L. Delrez, René Doyon, Elsa Ducrot, Néstor Espinoza, Amélie Gressier, David Lafreniére, Olivia Lim, Jacob Lustig‐Yaeger, Caroline Piaulet, Michael Radica, Zafar Rustamkulov, Kristin S. Sotzen

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Notes of the AAS · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsExoplanetTransit (satellite)Environmental scienceAstrobiologyAstronomyPhysicsPlanetTransport engineeringEngineeringPublic transport

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The TRAPPIST-1 system has been extensively observed with JWST in the near-infrared with the goal of detecting atmospheric transit transmission spectra of these temperate, Earth-sized exoplanets. A byproduct has been much more precise times of transit compared with prior available data from Spitzer, Hubble Space Telescope, or ground-based telescopes. In this note we use 23 new timing measurements of all seven planets in the near-infrared from five JWST observing programs to better forecast and constrain the future times of transit in this system. In particular, we note that the transit times of TRAPPIST-1h have drifted significantly from a prior published analysis by up to tens of minutes. Our newer forecast has a higher precision, with uncertainties ranging from 7 to 105 s during JWST Cycles 4 and 5. This forecast will help to improve planning of future observations of the TRAPPIST-1 planets, while we postpone a full dynamical analysis to future work.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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 Notes of the AASSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207