MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2120247109 · doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/1/48

DEEP NEAR-IR OBSERVATIONS OF THE GLOBULAR CLUSTER M4: HUNTING FOR BROWN DWARFS

2016· article· en· W2120247109 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobular clusterPhotometry (optics)Brown dwarfMagnitude (astronomy)White dwarfCluster (spacecraft)Near-infrared spectroscopyLimit (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We present an analysis of deep Hubble Space Telescope ( HST )/Wide Field Camera 3 near-IR (NIR) imaging data of the globular cluster (GC) M4. The best-photometry NIR color–magnitude diagram (CMD) clearly shows the main sequence extending toward the expected end of the hydrogen-burning limit and going beyond this point toward fainter sources. The white dwarf (WD) sequence can be identified. As such, this is the deepest NIR CMD of a GC to date. Archival HST optical data were used for proper-motion cleaning of the CMD and for distinguishing the WDs from brown dwarf (BD) candidates. Detection limits in the NIR are around F 110 W ≈ 26.5 mag and F 160 W ≈ 27 mag, and in the optical around F 775 W ≈ 28 mag. Comparing our observed CMDs with theoretical models, we conclude that we have reached beyond the H-burning limit in our NIR CMD and are probably just above or around this limit in our optical–NIR CMDs. Thus, any faint NIR sources that have no optical counterpart are potential BD candidates, since the optical data are not deep enough to detect them. We visually inspected the positions of NIR sources that are fainter than the H-burning limit in F 110 W and for which the optical photometry did not return a counterpart. We found in total five sources for which we did not get an optical measurement. For four of these five sources, a faint optical counterpart could be visually identified, and an upper optical magnitude was estimated. Based on these upper optical magnitude limits, we conclude that one source is likely a WD, one source could be either a WD or BD candidate, and the remaining two sources agree with being BD candidates. No optical counterpart could be detected for just one source, which makes this source a good BD candidate. We conclude that we found in total four good BD candidates.

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)0.000
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→