MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113364565 · doi:10.1086/525524

Low-Mass X-Ray Binaries and Globular Clusters in Centaurus A

2007· article· en· W2113364565 on OpenAlexaff
Andrés Jordán, G. R. Sivakoff, Dean E. McLaughlin, John P. Blakeslee, Daniel A. Evans, Ralph Kraft, M. J. Hardcastle, Eric W. Peng, Patrick Côté, J. H. Croston, Adrienne M. Juett, D. Minniti, Somak Raychaudhury, Craig L. Sarazin, D. M. Worrall, William E. Harris, Kristin A. Woodley, M. Birkinshaw, N. J. Brassington, W. Forman, C. Jones, S. S. Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsGlobular clusterAstrophysicsPhysicsLow MassHubble space telescopeObservatoryX-rayAstronomyPopulationGalaxyStarsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present results of Hubble Space Telescope and Chandra X-Ray Observatory observations of globular clusters (GCs) and low-mass X-ray binaries (LMXBs) in the central regions of Centaurus A. Out of 440 GC candidates, we find 41 host X-ray point sources that are most likely LMXBs. We fit King models to our GC candidates in order to measure their structural parameters. We find that GCs that host LMXBs are denser and more compact and have higher encounter rates and concentrations than the GC population as a whole. We show that the higher concentrations and masses are a consequence of the dependence of LMXB incidence on central density and size plus the general trend for denser GCs to have higher masses and concentrations. We conclude that neither concentration nor mass is a fundamental variable in determining the presence of LMXBs in GCs and that the more fundamental parameters relate to central density and size.

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)0.002
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations48
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstrophysical Phenomena and ObservationsFrench-language works237,207