MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1614678536 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/775/2/134

THE AGES OF 55 GLOBULAR CLUSTERS AS DETERMINED USING AN IMPROVED $\Delta V^{\rm HB}_{\rm TO}$ METHOD ALONG WITH COLOR-MAGNITUDE DIAGRAM CONSTRAINTS, AND THEIR IMPLICATIONS FOR BROADER ISSUES

2013· article· en· W1614678536 on OpenAlexaff
Don A. VandenBerg, K. Brogaard, Ryan Leaman, L. Casagrande

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubgiantPhysicsGlobular clusterAstrophysicsMetallicityHorizontal branchRed-giant branchStarsPhotometry (optics)Hubble space telescopeAbsolute magnitudeHertzsprung–Russell diagramStar clusterStellar evolution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ages have been derived for 55 globular clusters (GCs) for which Hubble Space Telescope Advanced Camera for Surveys photometry is publicly available. For most of them, the assumed distances are based on fits of theoretical zero-age horizontal-branch (ZAHB) loci to the lower bound of the observed distributions of HB stars, assuming reddenings from empirical dust maps and metallicities from the latest spectroscopic analyses. The age of the isochrone that provides the best fit to the stars in the vicinity of the turnoff (TO) is taken to be the best estimate of the cluster age. The morphology of isochrones between the TO and the beginning part of the subgiant branch (SGB) is shown to be nearly independent of age and chemical abundances. For well-defined color–magnitude diagrams (CMDs), the error bar arising just from the "fitting" of ZAHBs and isochrones is ≈ ± 0.25 Gyr, while that associated with distance and chemical abundance uncertainties is ∼ ± 1.5–2 Gyr. The oldest GCs in our sample are predicted to have ages of ≈13.0 Gyr (subject to the aforementioned uncertainties). However, the main focus of this investigation is on relative GC ages. In conflict with recent findings based on the relative main-sequence fitting method, which have been studied in some detail and reconciled with our results, ages are found to vary from mean values of ≈12.5 Gyr at [Fe/H] ≲ − 1.7 to ≈11 Gyr at [Fe/H] ≳ −1. At intermediate metallicities, the age–metallicity relation (AMR) appears to be bifurcated: one branch apparently contains clusters with disk-like kinematics, whereas the other branch, which is displaced to lower [Fe/H] values by ≈0.6 dex at a fixed age, is populated by clusters with halo-type orbits. The dispersion in age about each component of the AMR is ∼ ± 0.5 Gyr. There is no apparent dependence of age on Galactocentric distance ( R G ) nor is there a clear correlation of HB type with age. As previously discovered in the case of M3 and M13, subtle variations have been found in the slope of the SGB in the CMDs of other metal-poor ([Fe/H] ≲ − 1.5) GCs. They have been tentatively attributed to cluster-to-cluster differences in the abundance of helium. Curiously, GCs that have relatively steep "M13-like" SGBs tend to be massive systems, located at small R G , that show the strongest evidence of in situ formation of multiple stellar populations. The clusters in the other group are typically low-mass systems (with 2–3 exceptions, including M3) that, at the present time, should not be able to retain the matter lost by mass-losing stars due either to the development of GC winds or to ram-pressure stripping by the halo interstellar medium. The apparent separation of the two groups in terms of their present-day gas retention properties is difficult to understand if all GCs were initially ∼20 times their current masses. The lowest-mass systems, in particular, may have never been massive enough to retain enough gas to produce a significant population of second-generation stars. In this case, the observed light element abundance variations, which are characteristic of all GCs, were presumably present in the gas out of which the observed cluster stars formed.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations494
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207