MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169042857 · doi:10.1086/381751

The Extragalactic Origin of the Arcturus Group

2004· article· en· W2169042857 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStarsGalaxyGalactic planePopulationGalactic CenterAccretion (finance)Stellar populationK-type main-sequence star

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We reanalyze the group of stars associated kinematically with Arcturus and confirm that they constitute a peculiar grouping of metal-poor stars with similar apocentric radius, common angular momentum, and distinct metal abundance patterns. These properties are consistent with those expected for a group of stars originating from the debris of a disrupted satellite. The Arcturus group stands out clearly in the catalog of Beers et al. and in other compilations of metal-poor stars in the solar neighborhood. Its angular momentum appears too low to arise from dynamical perturbations induced by the Galactic bar and coincides with that of the kinematically peculiar population of stars identified above and below the Galactic plane by Gilmore, Wyse, & Norris: the Arcturus group is in all likelihood the solar neighborhood extension of such population. Further analysis is needed to confirm our proposal that Arcturus, together with some of the brightest stars in the night sky, may have formed beyond the confines of the Galaxy. However, validating the extragalactic origin of the Arcturus group would lend support to the prevalence of accretion events envisioned in hierarchical models of galaxy formation and would suggest that early mergers may have contributed a substantial fraction of the old and metal-deficient stars in the Galactic disk.

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 score0.403
Threshold uncertainty score0.942

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations125
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207