MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2019347506 · doi:10.1086/381483

Blue Horizontal-Branch Stars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. I. Sample Selection and Structure in the Galactic Halo

2004· article· en· W2019347506 on OpenAlexaff
Edwin Sirko, Jeremy Goodman, G. R. Knapp, J. Brinkmann, eljko Ivezi, Edwin J. Knerr, David J. Schlegel, Donald P. Schneider, Donald G. York

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsRR Lyrae variableAstrophysicsStarsHorizontal branchSkyPhotometry (optics)AstronomyGalaxyHaloGlobular clusterAbsolute magnitudeBlue stragglerGalactic haloMilky Way

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We isolate samples of 733 bright (g < 18) and 437 faint (g > 18) high-Galactic latitude blue horizontal branch stars with photometry and spectroscopy in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). Comparison of independent photometric and spectroscopic selection criteria indicates that contamination from F and blue-straggler stars is less than 10% for bright stars (g<18) and about 25% for faint stars (g>18), and this is qualitatively confirmed by proper motions based on the USNO-A catalog as first epoch. Analysis of repeated observations shows that the errors in radial velocity are approximately 26 km/s. A relation between absolute magnitude and color is established using the horizontal branches of halo globular clusters observed by SDSS. Bolometric corrections and colors are synthesized in the SDSS filters from model spectra. The redder stars agree well in absolute magitude with accepted values for RR Lyrae stars. The resulting photometric distances are accurate to about 0.2 magnitudes, with a median of about 25 kpc. Modest clumps in phase space exist and are consistent with the previously reported tidal stream of the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy. The sample is tabulated in electronic form in the online version of this article, or by request to the authors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations147
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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