To Be or Not to Be: Alicante-8, a Cluster or Not?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent surveys have uncovered new young massive clusters that host dozens of red supergiants (RSGs) near the inner Galaxy. However, many of them have still not been fully studied. Using Very Large Telescope/X-shooter near-infrared spectra, we present the first radial velocity analysis for the putative members of the candidate RSG cluster Alicante-8. Our results show a large dispersion of radial velocities among the candidate member stars, indicating that Alicante-8 does not seem to be a real cluster, unlike Alicante-7 and Alicante-10, which are confirmed by the distribution of the radial velocities of their RSG members. Measuring the spectral indices reveals that the assumption that the candidate stars are RSGs was incorrect, leading to the misclassification of Alicante-8 as a candidate RSG cluster. Our results imply that spectral classification based on the widely used CO band at 2.3 μm alone is not a sufficient criterion, because both red giants and RSGs can attain similar CO equivalent widths, and that spectroscopic radial velocities are needed in order to confirm unambiguously the cluster membership.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".