MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143468430 · doi:10.1086/587951

The ACS Virgo Cluster Survey. XV. The Formation Efficiencies of Globular Clusters in Early‐Type Galaxies: The Effects of Mass and Environment

2008· article· en· W2143468430 on OpenAlexaff
Eric W. Peng, Andrés Jordán, Patrick Côté, M. Takamiya, Michael J. West, John P. Blakeslee, Laura Ferrarese, S. Mei, J. Tonry, Andrew A. West

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Astrophysical Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
Canadian institutionsHerzberg Institute of Astrophysics
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobular clusterPhysicsAstrophysicsVirgo ClusterDwarf galaxyGalaxyAstronomyStar formationElliptical galaxyStarsStellar massStar cluster

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The fraction of stellar mass contained in globular clusters (GCs), also measured by number as the specific frequency, is a fundamental quantity that reflects both a galaxy’s early star formation and its entire merging history. We present specific frequencies, luminosities, andmass fractions for the globular cluster systems of 100 early-type galaxies in the ACSVirgo Cluster Survey, the largest homogeneous catalog of its kind.We find the following: (1) GCmass fractions can be high in both giants and dwarfs but are universally low in galaxies with intermediate luminosities. (2) The be-havior of specific frequency across galaxy mass is dominated by the blue GCs. (3) GC fractions of low-mass galaxies exhibit a dependence on environment. Nearly all dwarf galaxies with high GC fractions are within 1 Mpc of the cD galaxy M87, presenting the first strong evidence that GC formation in dwarfs is biased toward dense environments. (4) GC formation in central dwarfs is biased because their stars form earliest and most intensely. Comparisons to the

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations351
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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