MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994118378 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/135/1/83

THE DISTANCE OF THE FIRST OVERTONE RR LYRAE VARIABLES IN THE MACHO LARGE MAGELLANIC CLOUD DATABASE: A NEW METHOD TO CORRECT FOR THE EFFECTS OF CROWDING

2007· article· en· W1994118378 on OpenAlexaff
Christine M. Clement, Xin Xu, Adam Muzzin

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRR Lyrae variableAstrophysicsGlobular clusterLarge Magellanic CloudPhysicsDistance modulusVariable starAmplitudeStarsExtinction (optical mineralogy)Cepheid variableMagnitude (astronomy)OvertoneSmall Magellanic CloudAbsolute magnitudeInstability stripAstronomySpectral lineOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous studies have indicated that many of the RR Lyrae variables in the LMC have properties similar to those in the Galactic globular cluster M3. Assuming that the M3 RR Lyrae variables follow the same relationships among period, temperature, amplitude, and Fourier phase parameter ϕ 31 as their LMC counterparts, we have used the M3 ϕ 31 –log P relation to identify the M3-like unevolved first overtone RR Lyrae variables in 16 MACHO fields near the LMC bar. The temperatures of these variables were calculated from the M3 log P –log T eff relation so that the extinction could be derived for each star separately. Since blended stars have lower amplitudes for a given period, the period–amplitude relation should be a useful tool for determining which stars are affected by crowding. We find that the low-amplitude LMC RR1 stars are brighter than the stars that fit the M3 period–amplitude relation and we estimate that at least 40% of the stars are blended. Simulated data for three of the crowded stars illustrate that an unresolved companion with V ∼ 20.5 could account for the observed amplitude and magnitude. We derive a corrected mean apparent magnitude 〈 V 0 〉 = 19.01 ± 0.10 (extinction) ±0.02 (calibration) for the 51 uncrowded unevolved M3-like RR1 variables. Assuming that the unevolved RR1 variables in M3 have a mean absolute magnitude M V = 0.52 ± 0.02 leads to an LMC distance modulus μ = 18.49 ± 0.11.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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