MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139773694 · doi:10.1086/339210

Optical Identification of Multiple Faint X‐Ray Sources in the Globular Cluster NGC 6752: Evidence for Numerous Cataclysmic Variables1

2002· article· en· W2139773694 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobular clusterMillisecond pulsarLuminosityHubble space telescopeRADIUSAdvanced Camera for SurveysCluster (spacecraft)Star cluster

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on the Chandra ACIS-S3 imaging observation of the globular cluster NGC 6752. We detect 6 X-ray sources within the 10.5" core radius and 13 more within the 115" half-mass radius down to a limiting luminosity of Lx approx 10^{30} erg/s for cluster sources. We reanalyze archival data from the Hubble Space Telescope and the Australia Telescope Compact Array and make 12 optical identifications and one radio identification. Based on X-ray and optical properties of the identifications, we find 10 likely cataclysmic variables (CVs), 1-3 likely RS CVn or BY Dra systems, and 1 or 2 possible background objects. Of the 7 sources for which no optical identifications were made, we expect that ~2-4 are background objects and that the rest are either CVs or some or all of the 5 millisecond pulsars whose radio positions are not yet accurately known. These and other Chandra results on globular clusters indicate that the dozens of CVs per cluster expected by theoretical arguments are finally being found. The findings to date also suggest that the ratio of CVs to other types of X-ray sources is remarkably similar in clusters of very different structural parameters.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score0.474

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations100
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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