THE ACS FORNAX CLUSTER SURVEY. X. COLOR GRADIENTS OF GLOBULAR CLUSTER SYSTEMS IN EARLY-TYPE GALAXIES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We use the largest homogeneous sample of globular clusters (GCs), drawn from the ACS Virgo Cluster Survey (ACSVCS) and ACS Fornax Cluster Survey (ACSFCS), to investigate the color gradients of GC systems in 76 early-type galaxies. We find that most GC systems possess an obvious negative gradient in ( g – z ) color with radius (bluer outward), which is consistent with previous work. For GC systems displaying color bimodality, both metal-rich and metal-poor GC subpopulations present shallower but significant color gradients on average, and the mean color gradients of these two subpopulations are of roughly equal strength. The field of view of ACS mainly restricts us to measuring the inner gradients of the studied GC systems. These gradients, however, can introduce an aperture bias when measuring the mean colors of GC subpopulations from relatively narrow central pointings. Inferred corrections to previous work imply a reduced significance for the relation between the mean color of metal-poor GCs and their host galaxy luminosity. The GC color gradients also show a dependence with host galaxy mass where the gradients are weakest at the ends of the mass spectrum—in massive galaxies and dwarf galaxies—and strongest in galaxies of intermediate mass, around a stellar mass of . We also measure color gradients for field stars in the host galaxies. We find that GC color gradients are systematically steeper than field star color gradients, but the shape of the gradient–mass relation is the same for both. If gradients are caused by rapid dissipational collapse and weakened by merging, these color gradients support a picture where the inner GC systems of most intermediate-mass and massive galaxies formed early and rapidly with the most massive galaxies having experienced greater merging. The lack of strong gradients in the GC systems of dwarfs, which probably have not experienced many recent major mergers, suggests that low-mass halos were inefficient at retaining and mixing metals during the epoch of GC formation.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.009 |
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".