MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979610540 · doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a77

Dwarfs or Giants? Stellar Metallicities and Distances from ugrizG Multiband Photometry

2019· article· en· W2979610540 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsPhotometry (optics)StarsMetallicityGalaxyDwarf galaxySystematic errorRed-giant branchStellar kinematicsGiant star

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a new fully data-driven algorithm that uses photometric data from the Canada-France-Imaging-Survey (CFIS; $u$), Pan-STARRS 1 (PS1; $griz$), and Gaia ($G$) to discriminate between dwarf and giant stars and to estimate their distances and metallicities. The algorithm is trained and tested using the SDSS/SEGUE spectroscopic dataset and Gaia photometric/astrometric dataset. At [Fe/H]$<-1.2$, the algorithm succeeds in identifying more than 70% of the giants in the training/test set, with a dwarf contamination fraction below 30% (with respect to the SDSS/SEGUE dataset). The photometric metallicity estimates have uncertainties better than 0.2 dex when compared with the spectroscopic measurements. The distances estimated by the algorithm are valid out to a distance of at least $\sim 80$ kpc without requiring any prior on the stellar distribution, and have fully independent uncertainities that take into account both random and systematic errors. These advances allow us to estimate these stellar parameters for approximately 12 million stars in the photometric dataset. This will enable studies involving the chemical mapping of the distant outer disc and the stellar halo, including their kinematics using the Gaia proper motions. This type of algorithm can be applied in the Southern hemisphere to the first release of LSST data, thus providing an almost complete view of the external components of our Galaxy out to at least $\sim 80$ kpc. Critical to the success of these efforts will be ensuring well-defined spectroscopic training sets that sample a broad range of stellar parameters with minimal biases. A catalogue containing the training/test set and all relevant parameters within the public footprint of CFIS is available online.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.003

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.143 · 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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207