MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2015645360 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/796/2/90

THE CARINA PROJECT. VII. TOWARD THE BREAKING OF THE AGE-METALLICITY DEGENERACY OF RED GIANT BRANCH STARS USING THE<i>C</i><sub>U, B, I</sub>INDEX

2014· article· en· W2015645360 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsDominion Astrophysical Observatory
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRed-giant branchStarsGlobular clusterDegeneracy (biology)Horizontal branchRGB color modelAsymptotic giant branchPopulationStar count

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an analysis of photometric and spectroscopic data of the Carina dSph galaxy, testing a new approach similar to that used to disentangle multiple populations in Galactic globular clusters (GCs). We show that a proper color combination is able to separate a significant fraction of the red giant branch (RGB) of the two main Carina populations (the old one, ∼12 Gyr, and the intermediate-age one, 4–8 Gyr). In particular, the c U, B, I = ( U − B ) − ( B − I ) pseudo-color allows us to follow the RGB of both populations along a relevant portion of the RGB. We find that the oldest stars have a more negative c U, B, I pseudo-color than intermediate-age ones. We correlate the pseudo-color of RGB stars with their chemical properties, finding a significant trend between the iron content and the c U, B, I . Stars belonging to the old population are systematically more metal-poor ([Fe/H] =−2.32 ± 0.08 dex) than the intermediate-age ones ([Fe/H] =−1.82 ± 0.03 dex). This gives solid evidence of the chemical evolution history of this galaxy, and we have a new diagnostic that can allow us to break the age–metallicity degeneracy of H-burning advanced evolutionary phases. We compared the distribution of stars in the c U, B, I plane with theoretical isochrones, finding that no satisfactory agreement can be reached with models developed in a theoretical framework based on standard heavy element distributions. Finally, we discuss possible systematic differences when compared with multiple populations in GCs.

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)0.003
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.006

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→