The globular cluster/central black hole connection in galaxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explore the relation between the total globular population in a galaxy (NGC) and the mass of its central black hole (M•). Using a sample of 33 galaxies, twice as large as the original sample discussed by Burkert & Tremaine (2010), we find that NGC for elliptical and spiral galaxies increases in almost precisely direct proportion to M•. The S0-type galaxies by contrast do not follow a clear trend, showing large scatter in M• at a given NGC. After accounting for observational measurement uncertainty, we find that the mean relation defined by the E and S galaxies must also have an intrinsic or ‘cosmic’ scatter of ±0.2 in either log NGC or log M•. The residuals from this correlation show no trend with globular cluster specific frequency. We suggest that these two types of galaxy subsystems (central black hole and globular cluster system) may be closely correlated because they both originated at high redshift during the main epoch of hierarchical merging, and both require extremely high-density conditions for formation. Lastly, we note that roughly 10 per cent of the galaxies in our sample (one E, one S and two S0) deviate strongly from the main trend, all in the sense that their M• is at least 10 times smaller than would be predicted by the mean relation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".