MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171032444 · doi:10.1086/432246

Microlensing Optical Depth toward the Galactic Bulge Using Clump Giants from the MACHO Survey

2005· article· en· W2171032444 on OpenAlexaff
Piotr Popowski, K. Griest, Christian L. Thomas, K. H. Cook, D. P. Bennett, A. C. Becker, D. R. Alves, D. Minniti, A. J. Drake, C. Alcock, R. A. Allsman, T. S. Axelrod, K. C. Freeman, Marla Geha, M. J. Lehner, S. L. Marshall, C. A. Nelson, B. A. Peterson, P. J. Quinn, C. W. Stubbs, William J. Sutherland, T. Vandehei, D. L. Welch

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGravitational microlensingBulgeAstrophysicsPhysicsOptical depthStarsRed clumpAstronomyGiant star

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using 7 yr of MACHO survey data, we present a new determination of the optical depth to microlensing toward the Galactic bulge. We select the sample of 62 microlensing events (60 unique) on clump giant sources and perform a detailed efficiency analysis. We use only the clump giant sources because these are bright bulge stars and are not as strongly affected by blending as other events. Using a subsample of 42 clump events concentrated in an area of 4.5 deg2 with 739,000 clump giant stars, we find τ = 2.17-0.38+0.47 × 10-6 at (l, b) = (1°.50, -2°.68), somewhat smaller than found in most previous MACHO studies but in excellent agreement with recent theoretical predictions. We also present the optical depth in each of the 19 fields in which we detected events and find limits on optical depth for fields with no events. The errors in optical depth in individual fields are dominated by Poisson noise. We measure optical depth gradients of (1.06 ± 0.71) × 10-6 deg-1 and (0.29 ± 0.43) × 10-6 deg-1 in the Galactic latitude b and longitude l directions, respectively. Finally, we discuss the possibility of anomalous duration distribution of events in the field 104 centered on (l, b) = (3°.11, -3°.01), as well as investigate spatial clustering of events in all fields.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.776

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 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

Citations120
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207