When Do Stalled Stars Resume Spinning Down? Advancing Gyrochronology with Ruprecht 147
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent measurements of rotation periods () in the benchmark open clusters Praesepe (670 Myr), NGC 6811 (1 Gyr), and NGC 752 (1.4 Gyr) demonstrate that, after converging onto a tight sequence of slowly rotating stars in mass-period space, stars temporarily stop spinning down. These data also show that the duration of this epoch of stalled spin-down increases toward lower masses. To determine when stalled stars resume spinning down, we use data from the K2 mission and the Palomar Transient Factory to measure for 58 dwarf members of the 2.7 Gyr old cluster Ruprecht 147, 39 of which satisfy our criteria designed to remove short-period or near-equal-mass binaries. Combined with the Kepler data for the approximately coeval cluster NGC 6819 (30 stars with M ∗ > 0.85, our new measurements more than double the number of ≈2.5 Gyr benchmark rotators and extend this sample down to ≈0.55. The slowly rotating sequence for this joint sample appears relatively flat (22 ± 2 days) compared to sequences for younger clusters. This sequence also intersects the Kepler intermediate-period gap, demonstrating that this gap was not created by a lull in star formation. We calculate the time at which stars resume spinning down and find that 0.55 stars remain stalled for at least 1.3 Gyr. To accurately age-date low-mass stars in the field, gyrochronology formulae must be modified to account for this stalling timescale. Empirically tuning a core-envelope coupling model with open cluster data can account for most of the apparent stalling effect. However, alternative explanations, e.g., a temporary reduction in the magnetic braking torque, cannot yet be ruled out.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".