The GAPS Programme with HARPS-N at TNG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context. Orbital obliquity is thought to be a fundamental parameter in tracing the physical mechanisms that cause the migration of giant planets from the snow line down to roughly 10-2 au from their host stars. We are carrying out a large programme to estimate the spin-orbit alignment of a sample of transiting planetary systems to study what the possible configurations of orbital obliquity are and whether they correlate with other stellar or planetary properties. Aims. We determine the true and the projected obliquity of HAT-P-36 and WASP-11/HAT-P-10 systems, respectively, which are both composed of a relatively cool star (with effective temperature Teff< 6100 K) and a hot-Jupiter planet. Methods. Thanks to the high-resolution spectrograph HARPS-N, we observed the Rossiter-McLaughlin effect for both systems by acquiring precise (3−8 m s-1) radial-velocity measurements during planetary transit events. We also present photometric observations comprising six light curves that cover five transit events, which were obtained using three medium-class telescopes. One transit of WASP-11/HAT-P-10 was followed simultaneously from two observatories. The three transit light curves of HAT-P-36 b show anomalies that are attributable to starspot complexes on the surface of the parent star, in agreement with the analysis of its spectra that indicates moderate activity ( log R′HK = −4.65 dex). By analysing the complete HATNet data set of HAT-P-36, we estimated the stellar rotation period by detecting a periodic photometric modulation in the light curve caused by star spots, obtaining Prot = 15.3 ± 0.4 days, which implies that the inclination of the stellar rotational axis with respect to the line of sight is i⋆ = 65° ± 34°. Results. We used the new spectroscopic and photometric data to revise the main physical parameters and measure the sky-projected misalignment angle of the two systems. We found λ = −14° ± 18° for HAT-P-36 and λ = 7° ± 5° for WASP-11/HAT-P-10, indicating in both cases a good spin-orbit alignment. In the case of HAT-P-36, we were also able to estimate an upper limit of its real obliquity, which turned out to be ψ< 63 degrees.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.323 | 0.217 |
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".