Table 3.
Comparison with stellar parameters in the literature.
| Study and tool | ⟨ΔTeff⟩ [K] | ⟨Δ log g⟩ | ⟨Δ[Fe/H]⟩ | N |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bruntt et al. (2012)(a) | ||||
| VWA | +68 ± 79 | –0.01 ± 0.02 | +0.05 ± 0.09 | 9 |
| Molenda-Żakowicz et al. (2013) | ||||
| ROTFIT | +85 ± 72 | +0.23 ± 0.12 | +0.02 ± 0.12 | 9 |
| MOOG | –43 ± 101 | –0.12 ± 0.20 | +0.01 ± 0.05 | 9 |
| Buchhave & Latham (2015)(a) | ||||
| SPC | +9 ± 54 | +0.00 ± 0.01 | +0.03 ± 0.05 | 10 |
| Brewer et al. (2016)(b) | ||||
| SME | +28 ± 57 | +0.03 ± 0.07 | +0.02 ± 0.06 | 11 |
| Furlan et al. (2018) | ||||
| SPC | +36 ± 114 | +0.08 ± 0.18 | +0.06 ± 0.08 | 12 |
| Kea | +43 ± 73 | +0.01 ± 0.12 | +0.09 ± 0.09 | 10 |
| SpecMatch | +36 ± 73 | +0.01 ± 0.06 | +0.04 ± 0.13 | 9 |
| Newspec | +59 ± 38 | +0.07 ± 0.10 | –0.04 ± 0.09 | 4 |
| Combined | +52 ± 63 | +0.04 ± 0.08 | +0.06 ± 0.08 | 12 |
Notes. The mean differences are this study minus literature. N is the number of stars in common. The Teff and [Fe/H] values of Buchhave & Latham (2015) were used to estimate the seismic ages of most of our targets. We note that they provide the mean metallicity, not [Fe/H]. For Molenda-Żakowicz et al. (2013), we averaged the results obtained with different spectrographs for a given star and method (either ROTFIT or MOOG).
Two entries with different IDs are given in the catalogue for KIC 5184732, KIC 7970740, and KIC 8006161: we chose the values based on the spectrum with the highest S/N.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.