Paper detail

On the Metallicities of Kepler Stars

We use 12000 stars from Large Sky Area Multi-Object Fiber Spectroscopic Telescope (LAMOST) spectroscopic data to show that the metallicities of Kepler field stars as given in the Kepler Input Catalog (KIC) systematically underestimate both the true metallicity and the dynamic range of the Kepler sample. Specifically, to the first order approximation, we find [Fe/H]_KIC = -0.20 + 0.43 [Fe/H]_LAMOST, with a scatter of ~0.25 dex, due almost entirely to errors in KIC. This relation is most secure for -0.3<[Fe/H]_LAMOST<+0.4 where we have >200 comparison stars per 0.1 dex bin and good consistency is shown between metallicities determined by LAMOST and high-resolution spectra. It remains approximately valid in a slightly broader range. When the relation is inverted, the error in true metallicity as derived from KIC is (0.25 dex)/0.43~0.6 dex. We thereby quantitatively confirm the cautionary note by Brown et al. (2011) that KIC estimates of [Fe/H] should not be used by "anyone with a particular interest in stellar metallicities". Fortunately, many more LAMOST spectroscopic metallicities will be available in the near future.

preprint2014arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access9 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.