MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011168978 · doi:10.1086/507579

Structural Parameters for Globular Clusters in NGC 5128. II.<i>Hubble Space Telescope</i>ACS Imaging and New Clusters

2006· article· en· W2011168978 on OpenAlexaff
William E. Harris, G. L. H. Harris, P. Barmby, Dean E. McLaughlin, Duncan A. Forbes

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobular clusterPhysicsAstrophysicsElliptical galaxyStar clusterAstronomyMilky WayLuminosityGalaxyHubble space telescopeGalaxy clusterAdvanced Camera for SurveysCluster (spacecraft)Luminosity functionRADIUS

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report the first results from an imaging program with the ACS camera on HST designed to measure the structural characteristics of a wide range of globular clusters in NGC 5128, the nearest giant elliptical galaxy. From 12 ACS/WFC fields, we have measured a total of 62 previously known globular clusters and have discovered 69 new high-probability cluster candidates not found in any previous work. We present magnitudes and color indices for all of these, along with rough measurements of their effective diameters and ellipticities. The luminosity distribution of this nearly-uncontaminated sample of clusters matches well with the normal GCLF for giant elliptical galaxies, and the cluster scale size and ellipticity distributions are similar to those in the Milky Way system. The indication from this survey is that many hundreds of individual clusters remain to be found with carefully designed search techniques in the future. A very rough estimate of the total cluster population from our data suggests N_GC = 1500 in NGC 5128, over all magnitudes and within a projected radius R = 25' from the galaxy center.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.823

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations42
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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