CONSTRAINTS ON THE DISTANCE MODULI, HELIUM AND METAL ABUNDANCES, AND AGES OF GLOBULAR CLUSTERS FROM THEIR RR LYRAE AND NON-VARIABLE HORIZONTAL-BRANCH STARS. I. M3, M15, AND M92
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Up-to-date isochrones, zero-age horizontal-branch (ZAHB) loci, and evolutionary tracks for core He-burning stars are applied to the color–magnitude diagrams of M3, M15, and M92, focusing in particular on their RR Lyrae populations. Periods for the ab- and c-type variables are calculated using the latest theoretical calibrations of and as a function of luminosity, mass, effective temperature ( ), and metallicity. Our models are generally able to reproduce the measured periods to well within the uncertainties implied by the stellar properties on which pulsation periods depend, as well as the mean periods and cluster-to-cluster differences in and , on the assumption of well-supported values of , , and [Fe/H]. While many of RR Lyrae in M3 lie close to the same ZAHB that fits the faintest horizontal-branch (HB) stars at bluer or redder colors, the M92 variables are all significantly evolved stars from ZAHB locations on the blue side of the instability strip. M15 appears to contain a similar population of HB stars as M92, along with additional helium-enhanced populations not present in the latter which comprise most of its RR Lyrae stars. The large number of variables in M15 and the similarity of the observed values of and in M15 and M92 can be explained by HB models that allow for variations in Y. Similar ages (∼12.5 Gyr) are found for all three clusters, making them significantly younger than the field halo subgiant HD 140283. Our analysis suggests a preference for stellar models that take diffusive processes into account.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".