MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977477092 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/143/2/50

THE SPECTRAL ENERGY DISTRIBUTIONS OF WHITE DWARFS IN 47 Tucanae: THE DISTANCE TO THE CLUSTER

2012· article· en· W1977477092 on OpenAlexaff
Kristin A. Woodley, Ryan Goldsbury, Jason S. Kalirai, Harvey B. Richer, Pier-Emmanuel Tremblay, Jay Anderson, P. Bergeron, Aaron Dotter, Lisa J. Esteves, G. G. Fahlman, Bradley M. S. Hansen, Jeremy Heyl, Jarrod R. Hurley, R. Michael Rich, Michael M. Shara, P. B. Stetson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsUniversity of GuelphUniversité de MontréalUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobular clusterWhite dwarfAstrophysicsPhysicsDistance modulusPhotometry (optics)Wide Field Camera 3Hubble space telescopeAstronomyAdvanced Camera for SurveysStar clusterStars

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a new distance determination to the Galactic globular cluster 47 Tucanae by fitting the spectral energy distributions of its white dwarfs (WDs) to pure hydrogen atmosphere WD models. Our photometric data set is obtained from a 121-orbit Hubble Space Telescope program using the Wide Field Camera 3 UVIS/IR channels, capturing F390W, F606W, F110W, and F160W images. These images cover more than 60 arcmin2 and extend over a radial range of 5-13.7 arcmin (6.5-17.9 pc) within the globular cluster. Using a likelihood analysis, we obtain a best-fitting unreddened distance modulus of (m – M)o = 13.36 ± 0.02 ± 0.06 corresponding to a distance of 4.69 ± 0.04 ± 0.13 kpc, where the first error is random and the second is systematic. We also search the WD photometry for infrared excess in the F160W filter, indicative of low-mass companions, and find no convincing cases within our sample.

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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.679

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations56
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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