MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2472717529 · doi:10.3847/2041-8205/826/1/l1

LOST AND FOUND: EVIDENCE OF SECOND-GENERATION STARS ALONG THE ASYMPTOTIC GIANT BRANCH OF THE GLOBULAR CLUSTER NGC 6752<sup>∗</sup>

2016· article· en· W2472717529 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersScience and Technology Facilities Council
KeywordsGlobular clusterAsymptotic giant branchStarsHorizontal branchRed-giant branchStellar collisionWhite dwarf

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We derived chemical abundances for C, N, O, Na, Mg, and Al in 20 asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars in the globular cluster (GC) NGC 6752. All these elements (but Mg) show intrinsic star-to-star variations and statistically significant correlations or anticorrelations analogous to those commonly observed in red giant stars of GCs hosting multiple populations. This demonstrates that, at odds with previous findings, both first- and second-generation (SG) stars populate the AGB of NGC 6752. The comparison with the Na abundances of red giant branch stars in the same cluster reveals that SG stars (with mild Na and He enrichment) do reach the AGB phase. The only objects that are not observed along the AGB of NGC 6752 are stars with extreme Na enhancement. This is also consistent with standard stellar evolution models, showing that highly Na and He enriched stars populate the bluest portion of the horizontal branch and, because of their low stellar masses, evolve directly to the white dwarf cooling sequence, skipping the AGB phase.

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)0.000
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations24
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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