MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990659097 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/146/6/162

THE VAST POPULATION OF WOLF-RAYET AND RED SUPERGIANT STARS IN M101. I. MOTIVATION AND FIRST RESULTS

2013· article· en· W1990659097 on OpenAlexaff
Michael M. Shara, J. L. Bibby, David Zurek, P. A. Crowther, A. F. J. Moffat, Laurent Drissen

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGamma-ray bursts and supernovae
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité de Montréal
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsRed supergiantStarsAstronomySupernovaSupergiantGalaxySpiral galaxyWolf–Rayet starStar formationStellar evolution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

M101 is an ideal target in which to test predictions of massive star birth and evolution. The large abundance gradient across M101 (a factor of 20) suggests that many more WR stars must be found in the inner parts of this galaxy than in the outer regions. Many HII regions and massive star-forming complexes have been identified in M101; they should be rich in WR stars, and surrounded by RSG stars. Finally, the Wolf-Rayet stars in M101 may be abundant enough for one to explode as a Type Ib or Ic supernova and/or GRB within a generation. The clear identification of the progenitor of a Type Ib or Ic supernova as a WR star would be a major confirmation of current stellar evolution theory. Motivated by these considerations, we have used the Hubble Space Telescope to carry out a deep, HeII optical narrowband imaging survey of the massive star populations in the ScI spiral galaxy M101. Combined with archival broadband images, we were able to image almost the entire galaxy with the unprecedented depth and resolution that only HST affords. We describe the extent of the survey and our images, as well as our data reduction procedures. A detailed study of a field east of the center of M101, containing the giant star-forming region NGC 5462, demonstrates how we find candidates, their properties and spatial distribution, and how we rule out most contaminants. The spatial distributions of the WR and RSG stars near a giant star-forming complex are strikingly different. WR stars dominate the complex core, while RSG dominate the complex halo. Future papers in this series will describe and catalog more than a thousand WR and RSG candidates that are detectable in our images, as well as spectra of many of those candidates.

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)0.000
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.202
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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicGamma-ray bursts and supernovaeFrench-language works237,207