MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017540369 · doi:10.1086/527028

The Initial‐Final Mass Relation: Direct Constraints at the Low‐Mass End

2008· article· en· W2017540369 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhite dwarfStarsBalmer seriesLow MassOpen clusterBrown dwarfSpectral lineStellar massMass spectrum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The initial-final mass relation represents a mapping between the mass of a white dwarf remnant and the mass that the hydrogen-burning main-sequence star that created it once had. The empirical relation thus far has been constrained using a sample of ~40 stars in young open clusters, ranging in initial mass from ~2.75 to 7 M ☉ , and shows a general trend that connects higher mass main-sequence stars with higher mass white dwarfs. In this paper, we present CFHT CFH12K photometric and Keck LRIS multiobject spectroscopic observations of a sample of 22 white dwarfs in two older open clusters, NGC 7789 ( t = 1.4 Gyr) and NGC 6819 ( t = 2.5 Gyr). We measure masses for the highest signal-to-noise ratio spectra by fitting the Balmer lines to atmosphere models and place the first direct constraints on the low-mass end of the initial-final mass relation. Our results indicate that the observed general trend at higher masses continues down to low masses, with M initial = 1.6 M ☉ main-sequence stars forming M final = 0.54 M ☉ white dwarfs. When added to our new data from the very old cluster NGC 6791, the relation is extended down to M initial = 1.16 M ☉ (corresponding to M final = 0.53 M ☉ ). This extension of the relation represents a fourfold increase in the total number of hydrogen-burning stars for which the integrated mass loss can now be calculated from empirical data, assuming a Salpeter initial mass function. The new leverage at the low-mass end is used to derive a purely empirical initial-final mass relation. The sample of white dwarfs in these clusters also shows several interesting systems that we discuss further: a DB (helium) white dwarf, a magnetic white dwarf, a DAB (mixed hydrogen/helium atmosphere or a double degenerate DA+DB) white dwarf(s), and two possible equal-mass DA double degenerate binary systems.

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)0.003
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations319
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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