MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088349376 · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/776/1/l7

STAR CLUSTERS IN M31. V. EVIDENCE FOR SELF-ENRICHMENT IN OLD M31 CLUSTERS FROM INTEGRATED SPECTROSCOPY

2013· article· en· W2088349376 on OpenAlexaff
Ricardo P. Schiavon, Nelson Caldwell, Charlie Conroy, Genevieve J. Graves, Jay Strader, Lauren A. MacArthur, Stéphane Courteau, Paul Harding

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobular clusterAstrophysicsAndromeda GalaxyStar formationStar clusterStarsGalaxyPhysicsStellar populationCluster (spacecraft)LuminosityAstronomySpiral galaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past decade, the notion that globular clusters (GCs) are composed of coeval stars with homogeneous initial chemical compositions has been challenged by growing evidence that they host an intricate stellar population mix, likely indicative of a complex history of star formation and chemical enrichment. Several models have been proposed to explain the existence of multiple stellar populations in GCs, but no single model provides a fully satisfactory match to existing data. Correlations between chemistry and global parameters such as cluster mass or luminosity are fundamental clues to the physics of GC formation. In this Letter, we present an analysis of the mean abundances of Fe, Mg, C, N, and Ca for 72 old GCs from the Andromeda galaxy. We show for the first time that there is a correlation between the masses of GCs and the mean stellar abundances of nitrogen, spanning almost two decades in mass. This result sheds new light on the formation of GCs, providing important constraints on their internal chemical evolution and mass loss history. © 2013. The American Astronomical Society. All rights reserved.

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)0.000
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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.935

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations61
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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