A CATALOG OF GLOBULAR CLUSTER SYSTEMS: WHAT DETERMINES THE SIZE OF A GALAXY'S GLOBULAR CLUSTER POPULATION?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a catalog of 422 galaxies with published measurements of their globular cluster (GC) populations. Of these, 248 are E galaxies, 93 are S0 galaxies, and 81 are spirals or irregulars. Among various correlations of the total number of GCs with other global galaxy properties, we find that N GC correlates well though nonlinearly with the dynamical mass of the galaxy bulge , where σ e is the central velocity dispersion and R e the effective radius of the galaxy light profile. We also present updated versions of the GC specific frequency S N and specific mass S M versus host galaxy luminosity and baryonic mass. These graphs exhibit the previously known U-shape: highest S N or S M values occur for either dwarfs or supergiants, but in the midrange of galaxy size (10 9 –10 10 L ☉ ) the GC numbers fall along a well-defined baseline value of S N ≃ 1 or S M = 0.1, similar among all galaxy types. Along with other recent discussions, we suggest that this trend may represent the effects of feedback, which systematically inhibited early star formation at either very low or very high galaxy mass, but which had its minimum effect for intermediate masses. Our results strongly reinforce recent proposals that GC formation efficiency appears to be most nearly proportional to the galaxy halo mass M halo . The mean "absolute" efficiency ratio for GC formation that we derive from the catalog data is M GCS / M halo = 6 × 10 −5 . We suggest that the galaxy-to-galaxy scatter around this mean value may arise in part because of differences in the relative timing of GC formation versus field-star formation. Finally, we find that an excellent empirical predictor of total GC population for galaxies of all luminosities is N GC ∼ ( R e σ e ) 1.3 , a result consistent with fundamental plane scaling relations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".