Disentangling the Galaxy at low Galactic latitudes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have used the field stars from the open cluster survey BOCCE (Bologna Open Clusters Chemical Evolution), to study three low-latitude fields imaged with the Canada–France–Hawaii telescope (CFHT), with the aim of better understanding the Galactic structure in those directions. Because of the deep and accurate photometry in these fields, they provide a powerful discriminant among Galactic structure models. In the present paper we discuss if a canonical star count model, expressed in terms of thin and thick disc radial scales, thick disc normalization and reddening distribution, can explain the observed colour–magnitude diagrams (CMDs). Disc and thick disc are described with double exponentials, the spheroid is represented with a De Vaucouleurs density law. In order to assess the fitting quality of a particular set of parameters, the colour distribution and luminosity function of synthetic photometry is compared to that of target stars selected from the blue sequence of the observed CMDs. Through a Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, we find that the classical decomposition halo-thin/thick disc is sufficient to reproduce the observations – no additional population is strictly necessary. In terms of solutions common to all three fields, we have found a thick disc scalelength that is equal to (or slightly longer than) the thin disc scale.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".