MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046554185 · doi:10.1088/0004-6256/138/3/758

FURTHER DEFINITION OF THE MASS-METALLICITY RELATION IN GLOBULAR CLUSTER SYSTEMS AROUND BRIGHTEST CLUSTER GALAXIES

2009· article· en· W2046554185 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astronomical Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobular clusterPhotometry (optics)Galaxy clusterCluster (spacecraft)GalaxyScalingBrightest cluster galaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We combine the globular cluster (GC) data for 15 brightest cluster galaxies and use this material to trace the mass–metallicity relations (MMRs) in their globular cluster systems (GCSs). This work extends previous studies which correlate the properties of the MMR with those of the host galaxy. Our combined data sets show a mean trend for the metal-poor subpopulation that corresponds to a scaling of heavy-element abundance with cluster mass Z ∼ M 0.30±0.05 . No trend is seen for the metal-rich subpopulation which has a scaling relation that is consistent with zero. We also find that the scaling exponent is independent of the GCS specific frequency and host galaxy luminosity, except perhaps for dwarf galaxies. We present new photometry in (g',i') obtained with Gemini/GMOS for the GC populations around the southern giant ellipticals NGC 5193 and IC 4329. Both galaxies have rich cluster populations which show up as normal, bimodal sequences in the color–magnitude diagram. We test the observed MMRs and argue that they are statistically real, and not an artifact caused by the method we used. We also argue against asymmetric contamination causing the observed MMR as our mean results are no different from other contamination-free studies. Finally, we compare our method to the standard bimodal fitting method (KMM or RMIX) and find our results are consistent. Interpretation of these results is consistent with recent models for GC formation in which the MMR is determined by GC self-enrichment during their brief formation period.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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