COMPARING MID-INFRARED GLOBULAR CLUSTER COLORS WITH POPULATION SYNTHESIS MODELS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several population synthesis models now predict integrated colors of simple stellar populations in the mid-infrared bands. To date, the models have not been extensively tested in this wavelength range. In a comparison of the predictions of several recent population synthesis models, the integrated colors are found to cover approximately the same range but to disagree in detail, for example, on the effects of metallicity. To test against observational data, globular clusters (GCs) are used as the closest objects to idealized groups of stars with a single age and single metallicity. Using recent mass estimates, we have compiled a sample of massive, old GCs in M31 which contain enough stars to guard against the stochastic effects of small-number statistics, and measured their integrated colors in the Spitzer /IRAC bands. Comparison of the cluster photometry in the IRAC bands with the model predictions shows that the models reproduce the cluster colors reasonably well, except for a small (not statistically significant) offset in [4.5] − [5.8]. In this color, models without circumstellar dust emission predict bluer values than are observed. Model predictions of colors formed from the V band and the IRAC 3.6 and 4.5 μm bands are redder than the observed data at high metallicities and we discuss several possible explanations. In agreement with model predictions, V − [3.6] and V − [4.5] colors are found to have metallicity sensitivity similar to or slightly better than V − K s .
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".