First results from the LIFE project: discovery of two magnetic hot evolved stars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the initial results of the Large Impact of magnetic Fields on the Evolution of hot stars (LIFE) project. The focus of this project is the search for magnetic fields in evolved OBA giants and supergiants with visual magnitudes between 4 and 8, with the aim to investigate how the magnetic fields observed in upper main sequence (MS) stars evolve from the MS until the late post-MS stages. In this paper, we present spectropolarimetric observations of 15 stars observed using the ESPaDOnS instrument of the CFHT. For each star, we have determined the fundamental parameters and have used stellar evolution models to calculate their mass, age and radius. Using the LSD technique, we have produced averaged line profiles for each star. From these profiles, we have measured the longitudinal magnetic field strength and have calculated the detection probability. We report the detection of magnetic fields in two stars of our sample: a weak field of $B_l=1.0\pm0.2\,$G is detected in the post-MS A5 star 19$\,$Aur and a stronger field of $B_l=-230\,\pm\,10\,$G is detected in the MS/post-MS B8/9 star HR$\,$3042.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".