MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2616111077 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/aa6d51

The Binary Fraction of Stars in Dwarf Galaxies: The Case of Leo II

2017· article· en· W2616111077 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVelocity dispersionBinary starBinary numberStarsGalaxyRadial velocityDwarf galaxyOrbital elements

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We combine precision radial velocity data from four different published works of the stars in the Leo II dwarf spheroidal galaxy. This yields a data set that spans 19 years, has 14 different epochs of observation, and contains 372 unique red giant branch stars, 196 of which have repeat observations. Using this multi-epoch data set, we constrain the binary fraction for Leo II. We generate a suite of Monte Carlo simulations that test different binary fractions using Bayesian analysis and determine that the binary fraction for Leo II ranges from to , depending on the distributions of binary orbital parameters assumed. This value is smaller than what has been found for the solar neighborhood (∼0.4–0.6) but falls within the wide range of values that have been inferred for other dwarf spheroidals (0.14–0.69). The distribution of orbital periods has the greatest impact on the binary fraction results. If the fraction we find in Leo II is present in low-mass ultra-faints, it can artificially inflate the velocity dispersion of those systems and cause them to appear more dark matter rich than in actuality. For a galaxy with an intrinsic dispersion of 1 km s −1 and an observational sample of 100 stars, the dispersion can be increased by a factor of 1.5–2 for Leo II-like binary fractions or by a factor of three for binary fractions on the higher end of what has been seen in other dwarf spheroidals.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.233 · 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.

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

Citations48
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207