MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2086461081 · doi:10.1088/0004-637x/769/2/145

THE ACS VIRGO CLUSTER SURVEY. XVII. THE SPATIAL ALIGNMENT OF GLOBULAR CLUSTER SYSTEMS WITH EARLY-TYPE HOST GALAXIES

2013· article· en· W2086461081 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobular clusterVirgo ClusterCluster (spacecraft)GalaxyGalaxy clusterHost (biology)Elliptical galaxy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the azimuthal distribution of globular clusters (GCs) in early-type galaxies and compare them to their host galaxies using data from the ACS Virgo Cluster Survey. We find that in host galaxies with visible elongation ( > 0.2) and intermediate to high luminosities ( M z < −19), the GCs are preferentially aligned along the major axis of the stellar light. The red (metal-rich) GC subpopulations show strong alignment with the major axis of the host galaxy, which supports the notion that these GCs are associated with metal-rich field stars. The metal-rich GCs in lenticular galaxies show signs of being more strongly associated with disks rather than bulges. Surprisingly, we also find that the blue (metal-poor) GCs can also show the same correlation. If the metal-poor GCs are part of the early formation of the halo and built up through mergers, then our results support a picture where halo formation and merging occur anisotropically, and that the present-day major axis is an indicator of the preferred merging axis.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.222
Threshold uncertainty score0.442

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0110.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.008

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations20
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Astrophysical Journal→Same topicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena→French-language works237,207→