MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1984945787 · doi:10.1086/491706

The Evolved Stellar Content of NGC 147, NGC 185, and NGC 205*

2005· article· en· W1984945787 on OpenAlexaff
T. J. Davidge

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsHubble sequenceAsymptotic giant branchAstronomyGalaxyStarsLuminosityGlobular clusterRed giantDwarf galaxyElliptical galaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Broad-band near-infrared images are used to probe the photometric properties of the brightest asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars within 2 arcminutes of the centers of the dwarf elliptical galaxies NGC 147, NGC 185, and NGC 205. Sequences originating from oxygen-rich M giants and C stars are clearly distinguished on the (K, H − K) and (K, J − K) color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs). Based on the peak brightness and color of the M giant sequences, ages of 1 Gyr and 0.1 Gyr are predicted for the most recent significant star forming events in NGC 185 and NGC 205, respectively. The bolometric luminosity function (LF) of M giants in NGC 205 is flatter than in NGC 185, in agreement with studies at wavelengths shortward of 1µm. The most luminous AGB stars in NGC 147 are well mixed with fainter stars throughout the area surveyed in this galaxy, and the peak brightness of the M giant sequence indicates that the most recent significant star-forming activity occured ∼ 3 Gyr in the past. The C star contents of the three galaxies are compared in two ways. First, the notion of a specific frequency measurement for C stars, in which C star counts per unit magnitude are normalised to a common integrated K−band brightness using published surface photometry, is introduced. The specific frequency of C stars outside of the areas of most recent star formation is found to agree in all three galaxies. Second, comparisons are made using the integrated brightness from C

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.447

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations52
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207