MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3213207355 · doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202141742

CAPOS: The bulge Cluster APOgee Survey

2021· article· en· W3213207355 on OpenAlexfundno aff
José G. Fernández-Trincado, S. Villanova, D. Geisler, B. Barbuy, D. Minniti, Timothy C. Beers, Szabolcs Mészáros, Baitian Tang, Roger E. Cohen, C. Moni Bidin, Elisa R. Garro, Ian Baeza, César Muñoz

Bibliographic record

VenueAstronomy and Astrophysics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratorySmithsonian Astrophysical ObservatoryUniversity of Colorado BoulderOffice of ScienceMax-Planck-Institut für AstronomieMax-Planck-Institut für AstrophysikAgencia Nacional de Investigación y DesarrolloUniversidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e InovaçãoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloUniversity of OxfordYork UniversityCarnegie Institution for ScienceJoint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics - Center for the Evolution of the ElementsLeibniz-GemeinschaftUniversity of Notre DameCarnegie Mellon UniversityAlfred P. Sloan FoundationUniversity of WashingtonEuropean Space AgencyJohns Hopkins UniversityCarnegie Institution of WashingtonUniversity of UtahOhio State UniversityNational Science FoundationU.S. Department of EnergySmithsonian InstitutionNew Mexico State UniversityUniversity of PortsmouthVanderbilt UniversityYale University
KeywordsPhysicsAstrophysicsMetallicityGlobular clusterBulgeStarsRed giantCluster (spacecraft)Red clumpAstronomyGiant starVelocity dispersionGalaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We performed the first detailed spectral analysis of red giant members of the relatively high-metallicity globular cluster (GC) Tononzintla 2 (Ton 2) using high-resolution near-infrared spectra collected with the Apache Point Observatory Galactic Evolution Experiment II survey (APOGEE-2), obtained as part of the bulge Cluster APOgee Survey. We investigated chemical abundances for a variety of species including the light, odd-Z, α -, Fe-peak, and neutron-capture elements from high S/N spectra of seven giant members. The derived mean cluster metallicity is [Fe/H] = −0.70 ± 0.05, with no evidence for an intrinsic metallicity spread. Ton 2 exhibits a typical α -enrichment that follows the trend for high-metallicity Galactic GCs, similar to that seen in 47 Tucanae and NGC 6380. We find a significant nitrogen spread (> 0.87 dex), and a large fraction of nitrogen-enriched stars that populate the cluster. Given the relatively high-metallicity of Ton 2, these nitrogen-enriched stars are well above the typical Galactic levels, indicating the prevalence of the multiple-population phenomenon in this cluster that also contains several stars with typical low first-generation N abundances. We also identify the presence of [Ce/Fe] abundance spread in Ton 2, which is correlated with the nitrogen enhancement, indicating that the s -process enrichment in this cluster has likely been produced by relatively low-mass asymptotic giant branch stars. Furthermore, we find a mean radial velocity of the cluster, −178.6 ± 0.86 km s −1 , with a small velocity dispersion, 2.99 ± 0.61 km s −1 , which is typical of GCs. We also find a prograde bulge-like orbit for Ton 2 that appears to be radial and highly eccentric. Finally, the considerably nitrogen-enhanced population observed in Ton 2, combined with its dynamical properties, makes this object a potential progenitor for the nitrogen-enriched field stars identified so far toward the bulge region at similar metallicity.

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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.211
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations18
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAstronomy and Astrophysics→Same topicStellar, planetary, and galactic studies→French-language works237,207→