The Celestial Buffet: multiple populations and globular cluster formation in dwarf galaxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a framework that explains the commonly observed variation in light element abundances in globular clusters. If globular clusters form in the centres of dwarf galaxies, they will be pumped on to larger orbits as star formation progresses. The potential well will only retain the moderate velocity asymptotic giant branch (AGB) ejecta, the expected source of enrichment, but not supernova ejecta. There is no need to increase the initial cluster mass, a requirement of self-enrichment scenarios, as all the stars within the dwarf can contribute. As the clusters move through the dwarf centre they sweep up a mix of AGB ejecta and in-falling pristine gas to form a second generation of stars. The specific mix will vary in time and is thus able to explain the spread in second generation abundances observed in different clusters. The globular clusters will survive to the present day or be stripped as part of the hierarchical merging process of larger galaxies. We illustrate how this process may operate using a high-resolution simulation of a dwarf galaxy at high redshift.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".