Open Access
Table 1.
Comparison of the performances of the τobs method developed by Vrard et al. (2016) and the π0 fitting method from Sect. 4.5 in the case of a non-magnetized (a) and a magnetized (b) star, depending on the prescription chosen for uncertainties of Δτobs measurements.
| True δνmag, g(νmax) | δνmag, g(νmax) | Uncertainty | ΔΠ1LS | Uncertainty | p-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [δfres] | [δfres] | [δfres] | [s] | [s] | |||
| (a) | τobs method | 0 | ø | ø | 75.19 | δ(ΔΠ1res) = 0.61 | ø |
| π0 fitting method, δ(ΔΠ1over) | 0 | ø | ø | 75.17 | 0.11 | 0.13 | |
| π0 local fitting method, δ(ΔΠ1res) | 0 | ø | ø | 75.18 | 0.27 | 1 | |
| (b) | τobs method | 50 | ø | ø | 74.43 | δ(ΔΠ1res) = 0.61 | ø |
| π0 local fitting method, δ(ΔΠ1over) | 50 | 47 | 32 | 75.13 | 0.45 | < 0.001 | |
| π0 fitting method, δ(ΔΠ1res) | 50 | 44 | 22 | 75.12 | 0.53 | < 0.001 | |
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.