MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

3D IMAGE OF POLARIS FIELD STARS

2025· article· W7117474844 on OpenAlexaff
I. A. Usenko, M. P. Kaliuzhnyi, A. S. Miroshnichenko, S. Danford, D. G. Turner, D. J. Majaess, D. D. Balam

Bibliographic record

VenueOdessa Astronomical Publications · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsDominion Astrophysical ObservatoryMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStarsOpen clusterCepheid variableVector fieldField (mathematics)Radial velocity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a three-dimensional model of the positions of 20 stars in the field of the Cepheid UMi (Polaris) – 18 main sequence stars (spectral types A0–G0 V), the K-giant HD 6319 (K2 III) and Polaris itself (F8 Ib) – which was created using the 3D calculator Desmos 3D, based on the calculated U, V and W components of the full velocity vector of the stars in the Galactic coordinate system. In this paper, stellar radial velocity estimates from Usenko et al. (2023) were used. Two versions of the U, V, and W components were calculated based on Gaia DR3 parallaxes and photometric parallaxes. The resulting 3D image showed that, in both scenarios, 15 main-sequence stars, a K-giant, and Polaris form a noticeable clamp, while three stars (HD 14718, HD 90162, and HD 11696) are located outside of it. HD 14718 and HD 90162 belong to the thick disk, while HD 11696 is a remnant of a possible open cluster in Polaris’s field. The K-giant HD 6319 is located inside the clamp and quite close to the Cepheid, and it is quite possible that this clamp is part of the main component of the probable open cluster Polaris, dissolved in the field of the Cepheid. Using a 3D calculator to construct a spatial image of stars may serve as a good tool for studying the structure and dynamics of open clusters in the future.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.876
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.241 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOdessa Astronomical PublicationsSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207