MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205152771 · doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac50a5

The Ultramassive White Dwarfs of the Alpha Persei Cluster

2022· preprint· en· W3205152771 on OpenAlexaff
David R. Miller, Ilaria Caiazzo, Jeremy Heyl, Harvey B. Richer

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWhite dwarfPhysicsPleiadesAstrophysicsOpen clusterAstronomyAstrometryBlue dwarfStar clusterBrown dwarfStarsBlack dwarfSolar massCluster (spacecraft)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We searched through the entire Gaia EDR3 candidate white dwarf catalog for stars with proper motions and positions that are consistent with them having escaped from the Alpha Persei cluster within the past 81 Myr, the age of the cluster. In this search we found five candidate white dwarf escapees from Alpha Persei and obtained spectra for all of them. We confirm that three are massive white dwarfs sufficiently young to have originated in the cluster. All these are more massive than any white dwarf previously associated with a cluster using Gaia astrometry, and possess some of the most massive progenitors. In particular, the white dwarf Gaia EDR3 4395978097863572, which lies within 25 pc of the cluster center, has a mass of about 1.20 solar masses and evolved from an 8.5 solar-mass star, pushing the upper limit for white dwarf formation from a single massive star, while still leaving a substantial gap between the resulting white dwarf mass and the Chandrasekhar mass.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studiesFrench-language works237,207