MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095401829

and

2002· article· en· W7095401829 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobular clusterNeutron starStarsPhotometry (optics)Luminosity functionMass segregationCluster (spacecraft)Halo
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present wide field CCD photometry of a galactic globular cluster M92 obtained in the V and I bands with the CFH12K mosaic CCD at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope. A well-defined color-magnitude diagram is derived down to 5 magnitudes fainter than the cluster main sequence turn-off. After removing the background contribution, we obtain luminosity and mass functions, surface density profiles, and the surface number density maps of the stars belonging to the cluster. The surface density profile of all stars shows that the cluster’s halo extends at least out to ∼ 30 ′ from the cluster center in agreement with previous study, but the profile of faint stars at the very outer region of the cluster shows a different gradient compared with that of bright stars. For a mass function of the form Φ(M) ∝ M −(1+x) , we find that the inner region (5 ′ < r < 9 ′) of the cluster has x ≃ 1.2 ± 0.2, whereas the outer region (9 ′ < r < 15 ′) has x ≃ 1.8 ± 0.3, clearly indicating a mass segregation of the cluster. An estimate of the photometric mass of the cluster implies that the remnant populations (white dwarfs and neutron stars) contribute at least 25 % of the total cluster mass. The surface density map of M92 shows some evidence that the tidal tail of M92 may be oriented perpendicular to the direction toward the Galactic center. Subject headings: Galaxy: globular clusters: individual (M92)- Galaxy: kinematics and dynamics- stars: luminosity function, mass function 1.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Electron Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207