MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024856332 · doi:10.1086/324630

Abundances and Kinematics of Field Stars. II. Kinematics and Abundance Relationships

2002· article· en· W2024856332 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsDominion Astrophysical ObservatoryHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStarsHaloMetallicityAbundance (ecology)KinematicsGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As an investigation of the origin of "α-poor" halo stars, we analyze kinematic and abundance data for 73 intermediate-metallicity stars (-1 > [Fe/H] ≥ -2) selected from Paper I of this series. We find evidence for a connection between the kinematics and the enhancement of certain element-to-iron ([X/Fe]) ratios in these stars. Statistically significant correlations were found between [X/Fe] and galactic rest-frame velocities ( v RF ) for Na, Mg, Al, Si, Ca, and Ni, with marginally significant correlations existing for Ti and Y as well. We also find that the [X/Fe] ratios for these elements all correlate with a similar level of significance with [Na/Fe]. Finally, we compare the abundances of these halo stars against those of stars in nearby dwarf spheroidal (dSph) galaxies. We find significant differences between the abundance ratios in the dSph stars and halo stars of similar metallicity. From this result, it is unlikely that the halo stars in the solar neighborhood, including even the "α-poor" stars, were once members of disrupted dSph galaxies similar to those studied to date.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations157
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207