MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1651758029 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/808/1/11

ON THE DISTANCE OF THE GLOBULAR CLUSTER M4 (NGC 6121) USING RR LYRAE STARS. II. MID-INFRARED PERIOD–LUMINOSITY RELATIONS

2015· article· en· W1651758029 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsDominion Astrophysical Observatory
FundersMinistero dell’Istruzione, dell’Università e della RicercaCalifornia Institute of TechnologyJet Propulsion LaboratoryNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsRR Lyrae variableGlobular clusterPhotometry (optics)Distance modulusCepheid variableVariable starStarsHubble space telescope

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New mid-infrared (MIR) period–luminosity (PL) relations are presented for RR Lyræ variables in the globular cluster M4 (NGC 6121). Accurate photometry was obtained for 37 RR Lyræ variables using observations from the Infrared Array Camera on board the Spitzer Space Telescope . The dispersion of M4's PL relations is 0.056, and the uncertainty in the slope is 0.11 mag. Additionally, we established calibrated PL relations at 3.6 and 4.5 μ m using published Hubble Space Telescope geometric parallaxes of five Galactic RR Lyræ stars. The resulting band-averaged distance modulus for M4 is ± ± . The systematic uncertainty will be greatly reduced when parallaxes of more stars become available from the GAIA mission. Optical and infrared period–color (PC) relations are also presented, and the lack of an MIR PC relation suggests that RR Lyræ stars are not affected by CO absorption in the 4.5 μ m band.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 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

Citations38
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→