MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1569701120 · doi:10.1086/339667

M31 Globular Clusters in the [ITAL]Hubble Space Telescope[/ITAL] Archive. II. Structural Parameters

2002· article· en· W1569701120 on OpenAlexaff
P. Barmby, S. T. Holland, J. P. Huchra

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobular clusterPhysicsAstrophysicsSurface brightnessHubble space telescopeStar clusterGalaxyMilky WayFundamental plane (elliptical galaxies)Cluster (spacecraft)Galaxy clusterAstronomyGalaxy groups and clustersLenticular galaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze the structural parameters of the largest available sample of spatially resolved extragalactic globular clusters. The images of M31 GCs were found in a search of Hubble Space Telescope ( HST ) archival data, described in a companion paper. We measure the ellipticities and position angles of the clusters and conclude that the ellipticities are consistent with being caused by rotation. We find that most clusters' surface brightness distributions are well fitted by two-dimensional single-mass Michie-King models. A few clusters show possible power-law distributions characteristic of core collapse, but the spatial resolution is not high enough to make definitive claims. As has been found for other galaxies, the metal-rich clusters are slightly smaller than the metal-poor clusters. There are strong correlations between structural properties of M31 GCs, as for Milky Way clusters, and the two populations are located close to the same "fundamental plane" in parameter space.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.027

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations100
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astronomical JournalSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207