MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2996001130 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab6171

Effects of Close Binary Evolution on the Main-sequence Morphology of Young Star Clusters

2020· article· en· W2996001130 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstronomy and Astrophysical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilCanadian Institute for Advanced ResearchNorthwestern UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsStarsStellar evolutionCluster (spacecraft)LuminosityStar clusterBinary starBinary numberStar formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Star clusters are the building blocks of galaxies. They are composed of stars of nearly equal age and chemical composition, allowing us to use them as chronometers and as testbeds for gauging stellar evolution. It has become clear recently that massive stars are formed preferentially in close binaries, in which mass transfer will drastically change the evolution of the stars. This is expected to leave a significant imprint in the distribution of cluster stars in the Hertzsprung–Russell diagram. Our results, based on a dense model grid of more than 50,000 detailed binary-evolution calculations, show several distinct, coeval main-sequence (MS) components, most notably an extended MS turnoff region, and a group of near-critical rotating stars that is spread over a large luminosity range on the red side of the classical MS. We comprehensively demonstrate the time evolution of the features in an animation, and we derive analytic expressions to describe these features. We find quantitative agreement with results based on recent photometric and spectroscopic observations. We conclude that while other factors may also be at play, binary evolution has a major impact on the MS morphology of young star clusters.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations70
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicAstronomy and Astrophysical ResearchFrench-language works237,207