MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139842428 · doi:10.1086/421259

X‐Ray Sources and Their Optical Counterparts in the Globular Cluster M4

2004· article· en· W2139842428 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstrophysical Phenomena and Observations
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobular clusterROSATHubble space telescopeMillisecond pulsarLuminosityAstrometryCluster (spacecraft)ObservatoryOpen cluster

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report on the Chandra X-Ray Observatory ACIS-S3 imaging observation of the Galactic globular cluster M4 (NGC 6121). We detect 12 X-ray sources inside the core and 19 more within the cluster half-mass radius. The limiting luminosity of this observation is L X ≈ 10 29 ergs s -1 for sources associated with the cluster, the deepest X-ray observation of a globular cluster to date. We identify six X-ray sources with known objects and use ROSAT observations to show that the brightest X-ray source is variable. Archival data from the Hubble Space Telescope allow us to identify optical counterparts to 16 X-ray sources. Based on the X-ray and optical properties of the identifications and the information from the literature, we classify two (possibly three) sources as cataclysmic variables, one X-ray source as a millisecond pulsar, and 12 sources as chromospherically active binaries. Comparison of M4 with 47 Tuc and NGC 6397 suggests a scaling of the number of active binaries in these clusters with the cluster (core) mass.

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)0.001
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations85
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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