MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015084945 · doi:10.1086/518233

<i>Hubble Space Telescope</i>Photometry for the Halo Stars in the Leo Elliptical NGC 3377

2007· article· en· W2015084945 on OpenAlexaff
William E. Harris, G. L. H. Harris, Andrew C. Layden, P. B. Stetson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsDominion Astrophysical ObservatoryHerzberg Institute of AstrophysicsUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsStarsMetallicityAstronomyGalaxyHaloPhotometry (optics)Galactic halo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have used the ACS camera on HST to obtain ( V , I ) photometry for 57,000 red giant stars in the halo of the Leo elliptical NGC 3377, an intermediate-luminosity elliptical. We use this sample of stars to derive the metallicity distribution function (MDF) for its halo field stars and comment on its chemical evolution history compared with both larger and smaller E galaxies. Our ACS WFC field spans a radial range extending from 4 to 18 kpc projected distance from the center of NGC 3377 and thus covers a significant portion of this galaxy's halo. We find that the MDF is broad, reaching a peak at log( Z / Z ⊙ ) ≃ -0.6, but containing virtually no stars more metal-poor than log( Z / Z ⊙ ) = -1.5. It may, in addition, have relatively few stars more metal-rich than log( Z / Z ⊙ ) ≃ -0.3, although interpretation of the high-metallicity end of the MDF is limited by photometric completeness that affects the detection of the reddest, most metal-rich stars. NGC 3377 appears to have an enrichment history intermediate between those of normal dwarf ellipticals and the much larger giants. As yet, we find no clear evidence that the halo of NGC 3377 contains a significant population of "young" (<3 Gyr) stars.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0420.011

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 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

Citations48
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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