MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1578248037 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/138/6/1667

A<i>HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE</i>/WFPC2 SURVEY OF BRIGHT YOUNG CLUSTERS IN M31. III. STRUCTURAL PARAMETERS

2009· article· en· W1578248037 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsWestern University
FundersSpace Telescope Science InstituteNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsGlobular clusterStar clusterSurface brightnessMilky WayCluster (spacecraft)Velocity dispersionFundamental plane (elliptical galaxies)RADIUSStar formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surface brightness profiles for 23 M31 star clusters were measured using images from the Wide Field Planetary Camera 2 on the Hubble Space Telescope, and fitted to two types of models to determine the clusters' structural properties. The clusters are primarily young (~10^8 yr) and massive (~10^(4.5) M_⊙), with median half-light radius 7 pc and dissolution times of a few Gyr. The properties of the M31 clusters are comparable to those of clusters of similar age in the Magellanic Clouds. Simulated star clusters are used to derive a conversion from statistical measures of cluster size to half-light radius so that the extragalactic clusters can be compared to young massive clusters in the Milky Way. All three sets of star clusters fall approximately on the same age-size relation. The young M31 clusters are expected to dissolve within a few Gyr and will not survive to become old, globular clusters. However, they do appear to follow the same fundamental plane (FP) relations as old clusters; if confirmed with velocity dispersion measurements, this would be a strong indication that the star cluster FP reflects universal cluster formation conditions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score0.784

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.258 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations36
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207