The Cluster Ages Experiment (CASE) – IX. Analysis of four detached eclipsing binaries in the globular cluster NGC 3201
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We use photometric and spectroscopic observations of four detached eclipsing binaries in the globular cluster NGC 3201 to derive masses, radii, and luminosities of the component stars. Spanning across almost three magnitudes in the colour–magnitude diagram, the components offer a unique possibility to test the theory of stellar evolution. Their masses, radii, and luminosities range from 0.66 to 0.84 M⊙, 0.68 to 2.46 R⊙, and 0.38 to 5.56 L⊙, respectively. The distance to the cluster measured from the distance moduli of the component stars amounts to 4.54$^{+0.11}_{-0.14}$ kpc and agrees with the recent estimate based on Gaia parallaxes. By comparing the M − R and M − L diagrams of the component stars and the colour–magnitude diagram of NGC 3201 to Dartmouth model isochrones, we estimate the most probable age of the cluster to be 11.5 ± 0.5 Gyr. This estimate is based on three binaries only, as the fourth one seems to evolve along a different path, probably due to non-standard chemical composition and/or history. We confirm the tendency, observed in earlier CASE papers, for the age indicated by the M − R diagram to be younger than that implied by the colour–magnitude diagram.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".