MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974360894 · doi:10.1088/2041-8205/787/1/l5

DARK MATTER HALOS IN GALAXIES AND GLOBULAR CLUSTER POPULATIONS

2014· article· en· W1974360894 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal Letters · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobular clusterHaloGalaxyMilky WayDark matterPopulationGalaxy clusterDark matter haloCluster (spacecraft)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We combine a new, comprehensive database for globular cluster populations in all types of galaxies with a new calibration of galaxy halo masses based entirely on weak lensing. Correlating these two sets of data, we find that the mass ratio $\eta \equiv M_{GCS}/M_{h}$ (total mass in globular clusters, divided by halo mass) is essentially constant at $\langle \eta \rangle \sim 4 \times 10^{-5}$, strongly confirming earlier suggestions in the literature. Globular clusters are the only known stellar population that formed in essentially direct proportion to host galaxy halo mass. The intrinsic scatter in $\eta$ appears to be at most 0.2 dex; we argue that some of this scatter is due to differing degrees of tidal stripping of the globular cluster systems between central and satellite galaxies. We suggest that this correlation can be understood if most globular clusters form at very early stages in galaxy evolution, largely avoiding the feedback processes that inhibited the bulk of field-star formation in their host galaxies. The actual mean value of $\eta$ also suggests that about $1/4$ of the \emph{initial} gas mass present in protogalaxies collected into GMCs large enough to form massive, dense star clusters. Finally, our calibration of $\langle \eta \rangle$ indicates that the halo masses of the Milky Way and M31 are $(1.2\pm0.5)\times 10^{12} M_{\odot}$ and $(3.9\pm1.8)\times 10^{12} M_{\odot}$ respectively.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 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

Citations132
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal LettersSame topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaFrench-language works237,207