THE GLOBULAR CLUSTER SYSTEMS IN THE COMA ELLIPTICALS. IV: WFPC2 PHOTOMETRY FOR FIVE GIANT ELLIPTICALS ,
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyze photometric data in V and I for the globular cluster (GC) systems in five of the giant ellipticals in the Coma Cluster: NGC 4874, 4881, 4889, 4926, and IC 4051. All of the raw data, from the Hubble Space Telescope WFPC2 Archive, are analyzed in a homogeneous way so that their five cluster systems can be strictly intercompared. We find that the GC luminosity functions are quite similar to one another and reinforce the common nature of the mass distribution of old, massive star clusters in gE galaxies. The GCLF turnover derived from a composite sample of more than 9,000 GCs appears at V = 27.71 ± 0.07 (MV = −7.3), and our data reach about half a magnitude fainter – 2 – than the turnover. We find that both a simple Gaussian curve and an evolved Schechter function fit the bright half of the GCLF equally well, though the Coma GCLF is broader and has a higher “cutoff mass ” (Mc ∼ 3×10 6 M⊙) than in any of the Virgo giants. These five Coma members exhibit a huge range in GC specific frequency, from a low of SN ≃ 0.7 for NGC 4881 up to ≃ 12 for IC 4051 and NGC 4874. No single formation scenario appears able to account for these differences in otherwise-similar galaxies and may
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".