MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127978623 · doi:10.1088/0067-0049/194/1/12

THE <i>CHANDRA</i> CARINA COMPLEX PROJECT VIEW OF TRUMPLER 16

2011· article· en· W2127978623 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLuminosity functionStarsPopulationContext (archaeology)NebulaStellar classificationVariation (astronomy)Cluster (spacecraft)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Trumpler 16 is a well--known rich star cluster containing the eruptive supergiant $\eta$ Carin\ae\ and located in the Carina star-forming complex. In the context of the Chandra Carina Complex Project, we study Trumpler 16 using new and archival X-ray data. A revised X-ray source list of the Trumpler 16 region contains 1232 X-ray sources including 1187 likely Carina members. These are matched to 1047 near-infrared counterparts detected by the HAWK-I instrument at the VLT allowing for better selection of cluster members. The cluster is irregular in shape. Although it is roughly circular, there is a high degree of sub-clustering, no noticeable central concentration and an extension to the southeast. The high--mass stars show neither evidence of mass segregation nor evidence of strong differential extinction. The derived power-law slope of the X-ray luminosity function for Trumpler 16 reveals a much steeper function than the Orion Nebula Cluster implying different ratio of solar- to higher-mass stars. We estimate the total Trumpler 16 pre-main sequence population to be > 6500 Class II and Class III X-ray sources. An overall K-excess disk frequency of ~ 8.9% is derived using the X-ray selected sample, although there is some variation among the sub-clusters, especially in the Southeastern extension. X-ray emission is detected from 29 high--mass stars with spectral types between B2 and O3.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.425
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations53
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal Supplement SeriesSame topicAstrophysics and Star Formation StudiesFrench-language works237,207