MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3110440089 · doi:10.3847/1538-3881/abd01f

The Red Supergiant Content of M31 and M33

2021· article· en· W3110440089 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRed supergiantMilky WayAsymptotic giant branchSpiral galaxyPhotometry (optics)StarsExtinction (optical mineralogy)SupergiantGalaxyStellar evolution

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We identify red supergiants (RSGs) in our spiral neighbors M31 and M33 using near-IR (NIR) photometry complete to a luminosity limit of . Our archival survey data cover 5 deg 2 of M31, and 3 deg 2 for M33, and are likely spatially complete for these massive stars. Gaia is used to remove foreground stars, after which the RSGs can be separated from asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars in the color–magnitude diagram. The photometry is used to derive effective temperatures and bolometric luminosities via MARCS stellar atmosphere models. The resulting H-R diagrams show superb agreement with the evolutionary tracks of the Geneva evolutionary group. Our census includes 6400 RSGs in M31 and 2850 RSGs in M33 within their Holmberg radii; by contrast, only a few hundred RSGs are known so far in the Milky Way. Our catalog serves as the basis for a study of the RSG binary frequency being published separately, as well as future studies relating to the evolution of massive stars. Here we use the matches between the NIR-selected RSGs and their optical counterparts to show that the apparent similarity in the reddening of OB stars in M31 and M33 is the result of Malmquist bias; the average extinction in M31 is likely higher than that of M33. As expected, the distribution of RSGs follows that of the spiral arms, while the much older AGB population is more uniformly spread across each galaxy’s disk.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.233

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 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

Citations39
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207