Table 2.
Comparison with the literature.
| Reference | Total | Overlap | Confirmed | Rejected |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sacco et al. (2008) | 62 | 47 | 40 (85%) | 7 (14%) |
| Zapatero Osorio et al. (2002) | 27 | 20 | 16 (80%) | 4 (20%) |
| Caballero et al. (2019) | 103 | 60 | 46 (76%) | 14 (23%) |
| Hernández et al. (2014) | 238 | 128 | 93 (72%) | 35 (27%) |
| Maxted et al. (2008) | 237 | 78 | 49 (62%) | 29 (37%) |
| Kenyon et al. (2005) | 70 | 40 | 21 (52%) | 19 (47%) |
Notes. We list the total number of stars in the catalogues and the overlap with our input catalogue. Among the objects in the overlap, we counted the number of stars we confirmed and rejected as members in this work. Some of these rejected members have high membership probability but are located beyond 5 tidal radii from the cluster centre.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.